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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 2 and subspecies A, A2, I and ii in the reply filed on 7/25/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 14 remain withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conductive contact pad (claims 2 and 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 2-4 and 15-18 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the sensor probe comprises conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate” and claim 1 recites that a surrogate structure is formed from the printed circuit substrate. This means that, as claimed, the contact pad belonging to the sensor probe is on the printed circuit substrate forming the surrogate structure.
¶43 states “FIG. 5 is a top view of an illustrative portion of connector contact sensing equipment 50 (e.g., device 50) of the type described in connection with FIG. 4 . As shown in FIG. 5 , device 50 includes sensor probe 58 implemented as a cantilever beam having a distal end suspended in air (e.g., in air gap 66) and a proximal end attached to load cell 68. Sensor probe 58 may include an underlying substrate (e.g., a printed circuit substrate) similar to an edge card and/or conductive traces or a conductive contact pad formed on the underlying substrate.”
While ¶43 states that the sensor probe comprises a printed circuit substrate and a conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate, there is no support for the limitation that the contact pad of the sensor probe is on the same printed circuit substrate that forms an edge card surrogate structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in fig. 5, the printed circuit substrate 62 forming the surrogate structure 64, 64 is separate from the sensor probe 58. Since ¶43 states that the “sensor probe 58 implemented as a cantilever beam,” one of skill in the art would understand that the cantilever beam 58 in combination with printed circuit substrate 62 is not a cantilever beam, per se. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would understand that the printed circuit board of the sensor probe 58 cannot be the same as the printed circuit substrate 62 forming the surrogate structure.
Claim 2 also recites “wherein the sensor probe comprises conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate and wherein the force measured by the force sensor is applied by the first conductive contact structure on the conductive contact pad.”
There is no disclosure of where the unillustrated contact pad is, relative to the sensing portion of the force sensor. Accordingly, if the contact pad and sensing portion are at different locations along the length of the probe, which behaves as a cantilever, then the measured amount of force at the force sensor will be different from the amount of force felt by the contact pad.
Therefore, claim 2 contains new matter.
Claims 3-4 contain new matter for depending from claim 2.
Claim 15 recites “a printed circuit substrate having a portion that forms an edge card surrogate structure, wherein the sensor probe comprises a conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate.”
With respect to the claimed printed circuit board and contact pad, there is no support for the bolded limitations above for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Accordingly, there is no support for the combination of limitations “a printed circuit substrate having a portion that forms an edge card surrogate structure, wherein the sensor probe comprises a conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate,” wherein the printed circuit substrate forming the surrogate structure is the same as the printed circuit substrate having the pad of the sensor probe thereon.
Claim 15 further recites “wherein the force sensor is configured to detect a contact force applied on the conductive contact pad by a single conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins,” which is new matter.
There is no disclosure of where the unillustrated contact pad is, relative to the sensing portion of the force sensor. Accordingly, if the contact pad and sensing portion are at different locations along the length of the probe, which behaves as a cantilever, then the measured amount of force at the force sensor will be different from the amount of force felt by the contact pad. Accordingly, the cited portion above is new matter.
Claims 16-18 contain new matter for depending from claim 15.
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 2-4 and 15-18 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the sensor probe comprises conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate” and claim 1 recites that a surrogate structure is formed from the printed circuit substrate. This means that, as claimed, the contact pad belonging to the sensor probe is on the printed circuit substrate forming the surrogate structure.
¶43 states “FIG. 5 is a top view of an illustrative portion of connector contact sensing equipment 50 (e.g., device 50) of the type described in connection with FIG. 4 . As shown in FIG. 5 , device 50 includes sensor probe 58 implemented as a cantilever beam having a distal end suspended in air (e.g., in air gap 66) and a proximal end attached to load cell 68. Sensor probe 58 may include an underlying substrate (e.g., a printed circuit substrate) similar to an edge card and/or conductive traces or a conductive contact pad formed on the underlying substrate.”
While ¶43 states that the sensor probe comprises a printed circuit substrate and a conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate, the printed circuit substate of the sensor probe and the printed circuit substrate forming the surrogate structure are not the same printed circuit substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in fig. 5, the printed circuit substrate 62 forming the surrogate structure 64, 64 is separate from the sensor probe 58. Since ¶43 states that the “sensor probe 58 implemented as a cantilever beam,” one of skill in the art would understand that a cantilever beam 58 in combination with printed circuit substrate 62 is not a cantilever beam, per se. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would understand that the printed circuit board of the sensor probe 58 cannot be the same as the printed circuit substrate 62 forming the surrogate structure.
Accordingly, in light of the specification, it is unclear how the contact pad of the sensor probe is on the printed circuit board forming the surrogate structure, when the instant specification discloses that the contact pad of the sensor probe is on a printed circuit substrate that does not form the surrogate structure.
Claims 3-4 are indefinite for depending from claim 2.
Claim 15 recites “a printed circuit substrate having a portion that forms an edge card surrogate structure, wherein the sensor probe comprises a conductive contact pad on the printed circuit substrate.”
With respect to the claimed printed circuit substrate and contact pad, claim 15 is indefinite for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Accordingly, in light of the specification, it is unclear how the contact pad of the sensor probe is on the printed circuit board forming the surrogate structure, when the instant specification discloses that the contact pad of the sensor probe is on a printed circuit substrate that does not form the surrogate structure.
Claims 16-18 are indefinite for depending from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Field et al. (US 5107712 A, hereinafter Field).
As to claim 19, Field teaches a handheld connector contact force sensing device (col. 3 lines 50-56 teach that the automatic determination of the insertion of the sensing device eliminates the need for manual interrogation by the operator; since it is possible for manual interrogation to be performed, it is understood that the sensing device is handheld or capable of being held by hand) receivable by a pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device (the pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device is not positively recited as part of the sensing device, meaning that the sensing device of Field is capable of being received by a pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device), the handheld connector contact force sensing device comprising:
a support structure (having at least housing 14) having a form-factor that enables mating with a cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port mounted to a printed circuit substrate of the network device (the support structure is capable of mating with a pluggable optical transceiver module configured such that the support structure mates with a cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port mounted to a printed circuit substrate of the network device);
a force sensor 18X (fig. 2 above), 30 on the support substrate (i.e. support structure) and configured to detect, when the support structure is received in the cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port, a contact normal force applied by a single conductive contact pin (similar to a pin 16 contacting a probe element 18 in fig. 5; see col. 2 lines 49-60 and the paragraph bridging cols. 2-3) of a connector of the pluggable optical transceiver module port disposed within the cage (the sensing device of Field is capable of use with such a pluggable optical transceiver module); and
a transceiver module surrogate structure (comprising probes 18Y, 18Z in fig. 2 above) configured to engage, when the support structure is received in the cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port, other conductive contact pins of the connector of the pluggable optical transceiver module port while the force sensor detects the contact normal force (see col. 2 lines 49-60 and the paragraph bridging cols. 2-3; the sensing device of Field is capable of use with such a pluggable optical transceiver module).
As to claim 20, Field teaches a positioner (posts 48) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor (col. 3 lines 15-28 teach “The guide posts 48 maintain the alignment and position of the spring rod free ends 50 for longitudinal alignment with the spring conductors 16,” meaning that when the probes 18 are urged out of alignment, the posts 48 urge or provide an adjustment force to keep the probes in alignment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field et al. (US 5107712 A, hereinafter Field) in view of Mok et al. (US 20100213960 A1, hereinafter Mok).
[AltContent: textbox (18X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (18Z)][AltContent: textbox (18Y)][AltContent: textbox (18X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
391
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Field teaches a contact force sensing device (title) configured to mate with a port connector having a plurality of conductive contact structures (the device of Field is capable of mating with such a port connector), the contact force sensing device comprising:
a base (comprising at least housing 14);
a force sensor 18X, 22, 30 (the Examiner notes that Field comprises probe elements 18X-18Z, 18X2 in fig. 2 above) on the base configured to measure a force (see col. 2 line 49 – col. 3 line 14; also see fig. 1 and the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2) applied by a first conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures using a sensor probe 18X, 22 that contacts the first conductive contact structure when the sensor probe is inserted into the port connector (the plurality of conductive contact structures are not positively recited as part of the claimed sensing device; accordingly, Field’s probe 18X, 22 is capable of contacting the first conductive contact structure when the sensor probe is inserted into the port connector, which is also not positively recited as part of the claimed sensing device); and
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (P2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
391
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a mating connector surrogate structure P1-P2 (fig. 2 above) formed from first P1 and second P2 portions of a circuit substrate 20 (col. 2 lines 24-28), wherein the first and second portions of the circuit substrate flank opposing sides of the sensor probe 18X at a distal end of the sensor probe and wherein the first portion P1 of the circuit substrate is configured to contact at least a second conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures when the sensor probe contacts the first conductive contact structure (the second conductive contact structure is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the first portion of Field is capable of contacting at least a second conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures when the sensor probe contacts the first conductive contact structure).
Field does not teach wherein the circuit substrate is a printed circuit substrate.
Mok teaches a probe card test apparatus comprising probes 725-1, 725-n mounted on a printed circuit substrate 726 (¶103 and fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Field such that the circuit substrate is a printed circuit substrate since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit substrate for another for the predictable result that contact force testing is still successfully carried out (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would help to keep costs to a minimum - ¶106 of Mok).
As to claim 2, Field as modified teaches wherein the sensor probe 18X, 22 (Field) comprises conductive contact pad 22 (Field ) on the printed circuit substrate 20 (Field as modified) and wherein the force measured by the force sensor is applied (at least substantially) by the first conductive contact structure on the conductive contact pad (in that the force able to be applied by such a first conductive contact structure is able to be measured by the force sensor and is substantially applied on the contact pad 22 of Field).
As to claim 3, Field teaches wherein the force sensor further comprises a load cell 30 to which the sensor probe is attached (figs. 3 and 5; col. 2 lines 49-60).
As to claim 4, Field teaches wherein the plurality of conductive contact structures comprise a plurality of conductive contact pins (the contact force sensing device of Field is capable of being used with a port connector, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed sensing device, and which comprises conductive contact pins as the plurality of conductive contact structures).
As to claim 5, Field teaches wherein the mating connector surrogate structure P1-P2 is configured to contact each conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures other than the first conductive contact structure when the sensor probe contacts the first conductive contact structure (the sensing device of Field is capable of use with a port connector configured such that the mating connector surrogate structure P1-P2 is configured to contact each conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures other than the first conductive contact structure when the sensor probe contacts the first conductive contact structure).
As to claim 6, Field teaches wherein the plurality of conductive contact structures are arranged in a top row of conductive contact structures and a bottom row of conductive contact structures (the conductive contact structures are not positively recited as part of the sensor device; accordingly, the sensor device of Field is capable of use for testing a connector having upper and lower rows of contact structures).
As to claim 7, Field teaches wherein the first conductive contact structure is in the top row (the conductive contact structures are not positively recited as part of the sensor device; accordingly, the sensor device of Field is capable of testing a contact structure in a top row that is above a bottom row).
As to claim 8, Field teaches an additional force sensor 18X2, 30 (note that the load cell 30 here is separate from the load cell 30 of the first force sensor 18X, 30) on the base configured to measure an additional force applied by a third conductive contact structure in the plurality of conductive contact structures (which are not positively recited as part of the claimed sensing device) using an additional sensor probe 18X2 that contacts the third conductive contact structure when the additional sensor probe is inserted into the port connector.
As to claim 9, Field as modified teaches wherein the third conductive contact structure is in the top row (the conductive contact structures are not positively recited as part of the sensor device; accordingly, the sensor device of Field is capable of testing a third contact structure in a top row that is above a bottom row).
As to claim 11, Field teaches an output device configured to provide an output indicative of the measured force (the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2 teaches “The electronic circuit 9 provides power to the spring force probe 10 and converts the analog spring force output to a digital quantity. The digital data is transmitted to the computer 8, where it is displayed to the operator.”; accordingly, Field teaches an output device as claimed).
As to claim 12, Field teaches wherein the output device comprises a display and wherein the output comprises a visual output on the display (as taught in the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2).
As to claim 13, Field teaches wherein the port connector is configured to receive a removable optical transceiver module (the transceiver module is not positively recited as part of the sensor device, meaning that the sensing device of Field is capable of being used to test a port connector that is capable of receiving a removable optical transceiver module; alternatively, the port connector and removable transceiver module are not positively recited as part of the sensing device, meaning that the sensing device of Field is capable of being used with such a port connector).
As to claim 15, Field teaches a portable (www.dictionary.com defines “portable” as “capable of being transported or conveyed”; col. 3 lines 55-65 teach that the test equipment is slid into the socket assembly 12, meaning the test equipment of Field is portable) test equipment configured to be inserted into an edge card socket (the edge card socket is not positively recited as part of the claimed test equipment, meaning that the test equipment of Field is capable of being inserted into an edge card socket as claimed) having a plurality of conductive contact pins (similar to pins 16), the portable test equipment comprising:
a support structure (having at least housing 14);
a force sensor 18X (fig. 2 above), 22, 30 that includes a load cell 30 on the support structure and a sensor probe 18X, 22 having a proximal end attached to the load cell; and
a circuit substrate 20 having a portion P1 (fig. 2 above) that forms (part of) an edge card surrogate structure P1, 18Y (fig. 2 above), 18Z (fig. 2 above), wherein the sensor probe comprises a conductive contact pad 22 on the circuit substrate, wherein the force sensor is configured to detect a contact force (figs. 3 and 5; col. 2 lines 49-60) applied on the conductive contact pad by a single conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins (see figs. 2-3 and fig. 5; the conductive contact pins are not positively recited as a part of the claimed test equipment; accordingly, if such a single contact pin applies a force to the sensor probe, then the force would be substantially applied to the contact pad and also substantially detected by the force sensor), and wherein the portion P1 of the circuit substrate is configured to engage, when the single conductive contact pin applies the contact force on the conductive contact pad, at least a conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins disposed along a top edge of an opening of the edge card socket and a conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins disposed along a bottom edge of the opening of the edge card socket (the conductive contact pins are not positively recited as part of the claimed test equipment; accordingly, the test equipment of Field is capable of being used with an edge card socket configured such that the portion P1 of the circuit substrate is configured to engage, when the single conductive contact pin applies the contact force on the conductive contact pad, at least a conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins disposed along a top edge of an opening of the edge card socket and a conductive contact pin in the plurality of conductive contact pins disposed along a bottom edge of the opening of the edge card socket).
Field does not teach wherein the circuit substrate is a printed circuit substrate.
Mok teaches a probe card test apparatus comprising probes 725-1, 725-n mounted on a printed circuit substrate 726 (¶103 and fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Field such that the circuit substrate is a printed circuit substrate since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a circuit substrate for another for the predictable result that contact force testing is still successfully carried out (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would help to keep costs to a minimum - ¶106 of Mok).
As to claim 16, Field teaches wherein the edge card surrogate structure P1, 18Y, 18Z is coplanar (at least substantially coplanar) with the sensor probe 18X, 22 and is separated from the sensor probe (at the distal end of the test equipment) by a gap (such as the gap between elements 18X, P1).
As to claim 17, Field teaches wherein the portable test equipment has dimensions that correspond with dimensions of a cage for the edge card socket such that the portable test equipment is pluggable into the cage (the cage and edge card socket are not positively recited as part of the claimed test equipment; accordingly, the portable test equipment is capable of being used with a cage of an edge card socket dimensioned relative to the test equipment such that the portable test equipment has dimensions that correspond with dimensions of a cage for the edge card socket such that the portable test equipment is pluggable into the cage).
As to claim 18, Field teaches wherein the plurality of conductive contact pins are arranged in at least one row of conductive contact pins and wherein the single conductive contact pin is in a central region of the row of conductive contact pins (the conductive contact pins are not positively recited as part of the claimed test equipment; accordingly, the prior art test equipment is capable of use with an edge card socket configured with such contact pins).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field under a second interpretation in view of Oakley (GB 2245978 A).
As to claim 20, Field teaches a positioner (posts 48) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor (col. 3 lines 15-28 teach “The guide posts 48 maintain the alignment and position of the spring rod free ends 50 for longitudinal alignment with the spring conductors 16,” meaning that when the probes 18 are urged out of alignment, the posts 48 urge or provide an adjustment force to keep the probes in alignment).
If Applicant argues that Field does not teach the positioner as claimed,
Oakley teaches a positioner (comprising at least a movable unit 32 and bolts 36 that render the movable unit 32 movable when loosened) that adjusts a longitudinal position of a probe 16 (pg. 3 lines 16-22; pg. 5 lines 6-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Field to have a positioner for adjusting the position of the probes as taught by Oakley so as to enable the sensing device to be used with sockets having pins in a variety of locations relative to the longitudinal direction of the probes, which makes the sensing device more convenient and cost effective to use for an operator.
Field as modified teaches a positioner 32, 36 (Oakley) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field et al. under a third interpretation (US 5107712 A, hereinafter Field3).
Note that Field differs from Field3 with respect to the limitation of the sensing device being “handheld.”
As to claim 19, Field3 teaches a handheld connector contact force sensing device (col. 3 lines 50-56 teach that the automatic determination of the insertion of the sensing device eliminates the need for manual interrogation by the operator; since it is possible for manual interrogation to be performed, it is understood that the sensing device is handheld or capable of being held by hand) receivable by a pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device (the pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device is not positively recited as part of the sensing device, meaning that the sensing device of Field is capable of being received by a pluggable optical transceiver module port of a network device), the handheld connector contact force sensing device comprising:
a support structure (having at least housing 14) having a form-factor that enables mating with a cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port mounted to a printed circuit substrate of the network device (the support structure is capable of mating with a pluggable optical transceiver module configured such that the support structure mates with a cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port mounted to a printed circuit substrate of the network device);
a force sensor 18X (fig. 2 above), 30 on the support substrate (i.e. support structure) and configured to detect, when the support structure is received in the cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port, a contact normal force applied by a single conductive contact pin (similar to a pin 16 contacting a probe element 18 in fig. 5; see col. 2 lines 49-60 and the paragraph bridging cols. 2-3) of a connector of the pluggable optical transceiver module port disposed within the cage (the sensing device of Field3 is capable of use with such a pluggable optical transceiver module); and
a transceiver module surrogate structure (comprising probes 18Y, 18Z in fig. 2 above) configured to engage, when the support structure is received in the cage of the pluggable optical transceiver module port, other conductive contact pins of the connector of the pluggable optical transceiver module port while the force sensor detects the contact normal force (see col. 2 lines 49-60 and the paragraph bridging cols. 2-3; the sensing device of Field3 is capable of use with such a pluggable optical transceiver module).
If Applicant argues that Field3’s sensing device is not handheld, such a difference between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as explained next.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, a port and sensing device being sized such that the sensing device is handheld, as disclosed, would not have resulted in a sensing device that performs differently than the prior art sensing device.
Additionally or alternatively, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). In this case, sizing the port and sensing device such that the sensing device is handheld, instead of too large to be handheld, is similarly not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the port and apparatus of Field3 such that the sensing device is handheld, since such a modification would be a mere change in size, for the predictable result that weight and materials are beneficially reduced (additionally or alternatively, making the apparatus light/small enough to be handheld would make it easier for the operator to use).
As to claim 20, Field3 teaches a positioner (posts 48) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor (col. 3 lines 15-28 teach “The guide posts 48 maintain the alignment and position of the spring rod free ends 50 for longitudinal alignment with the spring conductors 16,” meaning that when the probes 18 are urged out of alignment, the posts 48 urge or provide an adjustment force to keep the probes in alignment).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field3 in view of Oakley (GB 2245978 A).
As to claim 20, Field3 teaches a positioner (posts 48) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor (col. 3 lines 15-28 teach “The guide posts 48 maintain the alignment and position of the spring rod free ends 50 for longitudinal alignment with the spring conductors 16,” meaning that when the probes 18 are urged out of alignment, the posts 48 urge or provide an adjustment force to keep the probes in alignment).
If Applicant argues that Field3 does not teach the positioner as claimed,
Oakley teaches a positioner (comprising at least a movable unit 32 and bolts 36 that render the movable unit 32 movable when loosened) that adjusts a longitudinal position of a probe 16 (pg. 3 lines 16-22; pg. 5 lines 6-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Field3 to have a positioner for adjusting the position of the probes as taught by Oakley so as to enable the sensing device to be used with sockets having pins in a variety of locations relative to the longitudinal direction of the probes, which makes the sensing device more convenient and cost effective to use for an operator.
Field3 as modified teaches a positioner 32, 36 (Oakley) coupled to and configured to adjust a sensor probe in the force sensor, wherein the contact normal force is applied on the sensor probe when the sensor probe is received in the pluggable transceiver module port (col. 2 lines 55-60 in Field3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that Field does not teach the amended portions of claim 19, and argues that claim 20 is patentable for depending from allegedly patentable claim 19.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since Field anticipates claims 19-20 as shown in the rejections above. Alternatively, Field as modified, Field under a second interpretation as modified, and/or Field3 as modified teach claims 19-20. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights