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 12/12/25. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (11,355,884).
With regard to claim 12, Yang teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “A connector assembly 100, comprising: a metal shielding cage 2 having an insertion space 216 and a top wall 211, a bottom wall 212, and two side walls 213 which define the insertion space 216, the insertion space 216 having a front end opening 217; and a grounding member 219 provided at the front end opening 217 of the metal shielding cage 2, wherein the metal shielding cage 2 is constructed with a protecting protrusion 213a on each side wall 213 positioned between the grounding member 219 and a locking elastic tab 317 in each side wall 213”.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (11,355,884).
With regard to claim 13, Yang teaches: “The connector assembly of claim 12”, as shown above.
Yang does not teach: “wherein the metal shielding cage further comprises a second protecting protrusion formed on the bottom wall”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the protecting protrusions on the bottom wall in order to strengthen the bottom wall (Yang, column 4 lines 53-60). 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, Yang teaches: “The connector assembly of claim 12”, as shown above.
Yang does not teach: “wherein the metal shielding cage further comprises a second protecting protrusion formed on the top wall”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the protecting protrusions on the top wall in order to strengthen the bottom wall (Yang, column 4 lines 53-60). 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 15, Yang teaches: “The connector assembly of claim 12”, as shown above.
Yang does not teach: “wherein the metal shielding cage further comprises a second protecting protrusion formed on the top wall and a third protecting protrusion formed on the bottom wall”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the protecting protrusions on the top and bottom walls in order to strengthen the top and bottom walls (Yang, column 4 lines 53-60). 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1, the arguments, in combination with the amendments to claim 1, overcome the cited prior art reference. Specifically, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “wherein the metal shielding cage is constructed with a protecting protrusion formed on an inner side surface of the bottom wall and a locking elastic tab formed in each side wall of the two side walls, the protecting protrusion being adjacent to a corresponding inner side elastic finger, being positioned behind the corresponding inner side elastic finger, and protruding toward the insertion space”, when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 1, since the structure in the cited references would not prevent the hooking and pulling of the elastic fingers. Claim 1 is therefore allowable.
Claims 2-8 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore also allowable.
With regard to claim 9, the arguments, in combination with the amendments to claim 9, overcome the cited prior art reference. Specifically, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “wherein the metal shielding cage comprises a protecting protrusion formed on an inner side surface of the bottom wall and a locking elastic tab formed in at least one of the two side walls, the protecting protrusion being adjacent to at least one of the latching apertures and protruding toward the insertion space”, when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 9, since the structure in the cited references would not prevent the hooking and pulling of the elastic fingers. Claim 9 is therefore allowable.
Claims 10-11 include all the limitations of claim 9 and are therefore also allowable.
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