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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2/28/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0037893 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1901 and 1902, as shown in figure 20. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --ELECTRICAL CONNECTION MEMBER CONNECTING A CABLE TO A CIRCUIT BOARD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME--.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 12 lines 4-5, the phrase “the third opening” should read --in the third opening--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-12 and 19 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mechanism” in claims 2 and 19 is used by the claim to mean “plate structure,” while the accepted meaning is “a part of a device operated for performing a task.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 3-12 include all the limitations of claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 16, and 18-19 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 provided in 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 mechanism 3 having a second opening 31 connected to the first opening 55, wherein the printed circuit board 5 is disposed on the mechanism 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 (portion of 13a contacting 31 in figure 8) contacting the mechanism 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 mechanism 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”.
With regard to claim 16, Ohno teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “An electrical connection member 91 coupled to a receptacle 1 provided in a circuit board 5 and configured to be separable from the receptacle 1, the electrical connection member 91 comprising: a cable 92; a head 9 connected to the cable 92, and protruding toward the receptacle 1 and toward the circuit board 5, the head 9 being configured to be coupled to the receptacle 1; and a boss structure 13a protruding from the head 9 or the cable 92 toward the circuit board 5 further than the head 9 protrudes toward the circuit board 5”.
With regard to claim 18, Ohno teaches: “The electrical connection member of claim 16”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “wherein the boss structure 13a comprises a connection terminal 43 contacting a mechanism 3 on which the circuit board 5 is provided”.
With regard to claim 19, Ohno teaches: “The electrical connection member of claim 16”, as shown above.
Ohno also teaches, as shown in figures 3-9: “wherein the boss structure 13a is provided in an opening 55 in at least one of the circuit board 5 and a mechanism 3 on which the circuit board 5 is seated”.
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, 10, 17, and 20 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
With regard to claim 17, Ohno teaches: “The electronic device of claim 16”, as shown above.
Ohno does not teach: “wherein the boss structure has at least one through-hole, and wherein the head comprises an outer shell, the outer shell comprising a partial area provided in the at least one through-hole”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zushi teaches, as shown in figures 6-8 and taught in column 8 lines 7-15: “wherein the boss structure 58 has at least one through-hole (where 59 extends through 58 in figure 8), and wherein the head 51 comprises an outer shell 59, the outer shell 59 comprising a partial area 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 in order to fix the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 8 lines 7-15).
With regard to claim 20, Ohno teaches: “The electrical connection member of claim 16”, as shown above.
Ohno does not teach: “wherein the boss structure is integral with at least one of the cable and the head, and wherein the boss structure is coupled to 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 taught in column 3 lines 11-16: “wherein the boss structure 58 is integral with at least one of the cable (taught in column 3 lines 11-16) and the head 51, and wherein the boss structure 58 is coupled to 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 cable and the electrical connection member to the circuit board (Zushi, column 3 lines 11-16 and column 8 lines 7-15).
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”. 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 change the shape of the electrical connection member so the boss protrudes in a direction inclined with respect to a surface of the circuit board in order to connect at different angles. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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