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 2/28/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno et al. (6,034,876).
With regard to claim 1, Ohno teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “An electronic device comprising: a printed circuit board 5 having a first opening 55; at least one receptacle 1 provided in the printed circuit board 5 and adjacent to the first opening 55; an electrical connection member 91 coupled to the at least one receptacle 1 and configured to be separable from the at least one receptacle 1; and at least one boss structure 13a and 43 provided inside the first opening 55 and protruding from the electrical connection member 91 toward the printed circuit board 5 (when 9 is mated with 1 in figure 3)”.
With regard to claim 2, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 1”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “further comprising: a plate structure 3 having a second opening 31 connected to the first opening 55, wherein the printed circuit board 5 is disposed on the plate structure 3, and wherein the at least one boss structure 13a is provided in the first opening 55 and the second opening 31”.
With regard to claim 11, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 2”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “wherein the at least one boss 13a structure comprises a connection terminal 43 contacting the plate structure 31”.
With regard to claim 12, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 2”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “further comprising: a third opening 32 formed in the plate structure 3, and in a direction that crosses a depth direction of the second opening; and a fixing member 12 protruding from the at least one boss structure 13a and provided the third opening 32”.
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 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno et al. (6,034,876) in view of Zushi et al. (11,114,806).
With regard to claim 3, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 2”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “wherein the electrical connection member 9 comprises: a head 9-1 coupled to the at least one receptacle 1; and a cable 92 connected to the head 9-1… and wherein the at least one boss structure is coupled to at least one of the cable and the head”.
Ohno does not specifically teach: “and wherein the at least one boss structure 13a is integral with at least one of the cable and the head”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zushi teaches, as shown in figures 6-8: “and wherein the at least one boss structure 58 is integral with at least one of the cable and the head 51”. 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 Zushi with the invention of Ohno in order to fix the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 8 lines 7-15).
With regard to claim 4, Ohno as modified by Zushi teaches: “The electronic device of claim 3”, as shown above.
Zushi also teaches, as shown in figures 6-8 and taught in column 3 lines 11-16: “wherein the head 51 comprises an outer shell 59 coupled to the cable (taught in column 3 lines 11-16), and wherein the at least one boss structure 58 is integral with at least one of the outer shell 59 and the cable”. 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 Zushi with the invention of Ohno as modified by Zushi in order to fix the cable and the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 3 lines 11-16 and column 8 lines 7-15).
With regard to claim 5, Ohno as modified by Zushi teaches: “The electronic device of claim 3”, as shown above.
Zushi also teaches, as shown in figures 6-8 and taught in column 3 lines 11-16: “wherein the cable comprises: an external conductor (outer conductor of the coaxial cable described in column 3 lines 11-16) connected to the head 51”. 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 Zushi with the invention of Ohno as modified by Zushi in order to fix the cable and the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 3 lines 11-16 and column 8 lines 7-15).
Zushi does not specifically teach: “and a sheath surrounding at least a portion of the external conductor, and wherein the at least one boss structure is attached to the sheath”. However, coaxial cables with a sheath around the outer conductor are well known in the art and provide protection to the conductors of the cable and said sheath would attach to the boss 58 of Zushi in order to protect the conductors of the cable exposed from the connector.
With regard to claim 6, Ohno as modified by Zushi teaches: “The electronic device of claim 3”, as shown above.
Zushi also teaches, as shown in figures 6-8 and taught in column 8 lines 7-15: “wherein the head 51 protrudes toward the printed circuit board 100, and wherein the at least one boss structure 58 protrudes toward the printed circuit board 100 further than the head 51 protrudes toward the printed circuit board 100”. 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 Zushi with the invention of Ohno as modified by Zushi in order to fix the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 8 lines 7-15).
With regard to claim 7, Ohno as modified by Zushi teaches: “The electronic device of claim 3”, as shown above.
Zushi also teaches, as shown in figures 6-8 and taught in column 8 lines 7-15: “wherein the at least one boss structure 58 comprises at least one through-hole (where 59 extends through 58 in figure 8) passing through the at least one boss structure 58 along an axial direction of the cable, wherein the head 51 comprises an outer shell 59, and wherein a partial area of the outer shell 59 is provided in the at least one through-hole”. 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 Zushi with the invention of Ohno as modified by Zushi in order to fix the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 8 lines 7-15).
With regard to claim 10, Ohno as modified by Zushi teaches: “The electronic device of claim 3”, as shown above.
Zushi also teaches, as shown in figures 6-8: “wherein the at least one boss structure 58 comprises: a first boss structure (shown below) provided in an area that does not overlap the cable; and a second boss structure (shown below) provided in an area that overlaps the cable, the second boss structure comprising a through-hole into which the cable is provided”.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno et al. (6,034,876).
With regard to claim 13, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 1”, as shown above.
Ohno does not teach: “further comprising a plurality of electrical connection members including the electrical connection member, wherein the at least one boss structure comprises a plurality of boss structures, and wherein one boss structure of the plurality of boss structures is provided in each of the plurality of electrical connection members”. 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 duplicate the electrical connection members each having a boss structure in order to connect multiple connectors to the circuit board. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regard to claim 14, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 1”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the at least one boss structure 13a comprises a plurality of boss structures 13a, and wherein the electronic device further comprises clamp members 43 provided between (43 are inserted between each boss 13a) the plurality of boss structures 13a”.
With regard to claim 15, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 1”, as shown above.
Ohno does not teach: “wherein at least a partial area of the at least one boss structure protrudes in a direction that is inclined with respect to one surface of the printed circuit board”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 16, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “the head being configured to be coupled to the receptacle to face the receptacle in a first direction… wherein the boss structure is provided inside an opening formed in the circuit board in the first direction”, when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 16. Claim 16 is therefore allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited boss structure in the rejection of claim 1 does not meet the limitations of being inside the first opening. The rejection has been amended in light of the amendment to include the portion 43 as part of the boss, meeting this limitation.
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
Prosecution Insights