DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the amendment filed on 9/4/2025.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, 12, 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 20210083415).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) an interchangeable adapter (500a, see annotation and ¶0041) configured to connect a first coaxial connector (coaxial connector that is inserted 400a) to a second coaxial connector (300a), the interchangeable adapter (500a) comprising: an inner conductor (106) configured to be galvanically connectable and/or connected to an inner conductor (inner conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a), and an outer conductor (604a) configured to be galvanically connectable and/or connected to an outer conductor of the second coaxial connector (outer conductor is capable of being galvanically connectable to an outer conductor of 300a), wherein the outer conductor (604a) comprises a main body (body of 500a) and a hollow contacting segment (606a), wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) extends from the main body (body of 500a) in an axial direction of the inner conductor (106), wherein the inner conductor (106) is arranged within the hollow contacting segment (606a), wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is elastical (i.e. 606a is inherently elastical because it elastically deflects when it comes into contact with 502) in axial direction, wherein an end face (606b) of the hollow contacting segment (606a) is configured to be brought into contact with a contact area (300b) of the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a), such that a ground connection between the outer conductor (604a) of the interchangeable adapter (500a) and the second coaxial connector (300a) is established, wherein the outer conductor (604a) of the interchangeable adapter (500a) comprises at least one stop surface (606c), wherein the at least one stop surface (606c) is configured to be brought into contact with a corresponding stop surface (300c) at the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a) if a contact pressure between the hollow contacting segment (606a) and the contact area (300b) of the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a) exceeds a threshold, thereby limiting the contact pressure (i.e. if 606c comes into contact with 300c, it would inherently limit the contact pressure if the pressure exceeds a threshold).
~ Please see annotation of figure 10A in the Huang reference, where the adapter 500a, the second coaxial connector 300a, the contact area 300b, the corresponding stop surface 300c, the area 400a where the first coaxial connector is inserted, the outer conductor 604a, the hollow contacting segment 606a, the end face 606b, and the stop surface 606c can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Huang (figures 1 – 11, annotation) teaches the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the first coaxial connector (coaxial connector that is inserted 400a) is a coaxial connector of a coaxial cable (i.e. 400a is a coaxial connector for a coaxial cable) or a coaxial device or a device under test, or wherein the first coaxial connector (coaxial connector that is inserted 400a) comprises a coaxial plug (i.e. coaxial connector that goes into 400a inherently has a pin to be able to connect to the adapter 500a).
Regarding claim 3, Huang (figures 1 – 11, annotation) teaches the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the second coaxial connector (300a; 300) is a coaxial connector of a coaxial cable (i.e. 300a and 300 are coaxial connectors for a coaxial cable; ¶0003) or a coaxial system or a measurement device, or wherein the second coaxial connector (300a; 300) comprises a coaxial socket (¶0039).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the at least one stop surface (606c) is spaced further away from the inner conductor (106; see figure 10A) than the end face (606b) of the hollow contacting segment (606a).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is configured to be shortened if the interchangeable adapter (500a) is pressed towards the second coaxial connector (i.e. 606a is capable of being shortened if 500a is pressed towards a coaxial connector), thereby especially allowing the at least one stop surface (606c) of the interchangeable adapter (500a) to be brought into contact with the corresponding stop surface (300c) of the second coaxial connector (300a).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) comprises a thickness in radial direction that is selected such that the contact force being achievable between the end face (606b) of the hollow contacting segment (606a) and the contact area (300b) of the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a) is below a threshold, thereby especially avoiding any damages to the contact area (300b) of the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) comprises a smaller diameter and/or a smaller cross section (see figure 10A) than the main body (body of 500a) of the outer conductor (508) of the interchangeable adapter (500a).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) comprises a smaller wall thickness than the main body (body of 500a) of the outer conductor (604a) of the interchangeable adapter (500a).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein a diameter, or cross section, or wall thickness (i.e. thickness of 606a) of the hollow contacting segment (606a) is larger at an end region (region in 606b) comprising the end face (606b) than in the correspondingly remaining region (remaining region of 604a).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the main body (body of 500a) and the hollow contacting segment (606a) are or form a single piece (i.e. see figure 10A).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is symmetric especially in radial direction (see figure 10A), or wherein the hollow contacting segment is not symmetric especially in radial direction.
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is free of openings in its circumferential wall (there are no openings in wall of 606a).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is configured to be more deformed in the axial direction than in the radial direction (i.e. 606a is capable of being deformed more in the axial direction than in radial direction) when the interchangeable adapter (500a) is pressed onto the second coaxial connector (300a).
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) is free of a galvanical contact in radial direction to the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the second coaxial connector (300a).
Regarding claim 19, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11, annotation) a system comprising: an interchangeable adapter (500a) according to claim 1, and a coaxial system (i.e. see figure 10A), wherein the interchangeable adapter (500a) is connected to, screwed to, or plugged into the coaxial system (i.e. see figure 10c), such that the inner conductor (106) of the interchangeable adapter (500a) is galvanically connected to the inner conductor (see pin in 300a on figure 10A) of the coaxial system (i.e. see figure 10A), and such that the outer conductor (604a) of the interchangeable adapter (500a) is galvanically connected through its hollow contacting segment (i.e. 606a) to the outer conductor (outer conductor of 300a) of the coaxial system (i.e. see figure 10a).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20210083415) in view of Hsu (US 20120176150).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 9, wherein the wall thickness (i.e. thickness remaining region of 604a) of the correspondingly remaining region (i.e. remaining region of 604a) is 1 mm or deviates by less than 20%, or the wall thickness of the corresponding remaining region is 0.165 mm or deviates by less than 20%.
Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the wall recited in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use different dimensions for the thickness of the wall, as a matter of routine optimization to suit specific design requirements to improve the mechanical strength or enhance flexibility. Furthermore, the particular dimensions of the wall thickness, to the extent that the prior art does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the wall thickness would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the wall thickness would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 9, wherein the length of the correspondingly remaining region (i.e. length of 604a) is less than 20 mm or less than 15 mm, the length of the corresponding remaining region is 1.312 mm or deviates by less than 20%.
Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the length of the correspondingly remaining region recited in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use different dimensions for the length of the correspondingly remaining region, as a matter of routine optimization to suit specific design requirements to improve the mechanical strength or enhance flexibility. Furthermore, the particular dimensions of length of the correspondingly remaining region, to the extent that the prior art does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the correspondingly remaining region would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the length of the correspondingly remaining region would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11) the interchangeable adapter according to claim 1, wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) comprises copper beryllium, or wherein the hollow contacting segment (606a) comprises at least one of copper, a copper alloy, stainless steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, brass, a brass alloy, plastic comprising an electrically conductive coating, an elastic or springy and electrically conductive material (i.e. ¶0028), or any combination thereof.
Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the list of materials recited in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a hollow contacting segment using any of the materials listed in the claim to improve the electrical conductivity of the connector, as these are well-known materials commonly used in the art for their conductive and elastic properties. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 20, Huang teaches (figures 1 – 11) the interchangeable adapter (500a) according to claim 1 for being connected and/or screwed to and/or plugged into the at least one port (i.e. adapter is capable of being connected into at least one port).
But Huang does not explicitly disclose a kit comprising: a measurement device comprising at least one port.
Hsu teaches (figures 1 – 6) a device comprising a kit comprising: a measurement device (100a) comprising at least one port (110a, 120a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang with the device as disclosed by Hsu to provide a kit comprising: a measurement device comprising at least one port, to facilitate on-site testing, improve portability, and reducing setup complexity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 – 14, filed on 9/4/2025, with respect to the drawing objections, the objection to the specification, the objections to the claims, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the drawings have been withdrawn. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/4/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant states that “The only visible structure of 606a in Huang appears to be a rigid metallic shell or sleeve – consistent with standard coaxial geometries intended for structural fit, not elasticity. Even if any deformation were to occur, the figures suggest radial flex, not axial elasticity, which is materially and functionally different. The Office Action has not provided a credible rationale for why axial elasticity would inherently result from the illustrated structure.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that metallic materials commonly used in coaxial connectors are elastically deformable within their elastic range. These materials are selected for their ability to undergo limited elastic deflection and return to their original shape upon removal of force, thereby maintaining reliable electrical and mechanical contact during repeated connection and disconnection cycles. Thus, even if the contacting segment is metallic, it does not preclude it from being “elastical”, as claimed. Furthermore, Huang discloses a hollow contacting segment (annotated as 606a in the Office Action) designed to receive a mating coaxial connector. During insertion, an axial insertion force is applied to the hollow contacting segment (annotated as 606a in the Office Action), which necessarily causes both radial and axial elastic deformation of the contacting structure to accommodate the mating connector. A rigid, non-elastic metallic contact could not perform this intended function without risk of permanent deformation or contact failure.
Secondly, Applicant states that “Huang does not disclose a distinct “main body” of the outer conductor at all. The alleged “body of 500a” refers to the entire adapter, not the outer conductor specifically.”. Later on, Applicant states that “The term “extends from” implies that the hollow contacting segment is a protruding substructure or elastically compliant extension of a relatively more rigid main body – a concept entirely absent from Huang’s design.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner included the annotation of “body of 500a” to simply refer to the middle section of the adapter as seen in figure 10A. In Huang, paragraph [0040], it is disclosed that “The female-female adapter 500 may also include two end portions 506 extending axially outwardly from the central body 502.”. Additionally, figure 8 in Huang shows a main body 500 with a hollow contacting segment 300 extending from the main body 500. Therefore, the concept that the hollow contacting segment is a protruding substructure or elastically compliant extension of a relatively more rigid main body is in fact disclosed by Huang.
Thirdly, Applicant states that “Huang is silent as to a pressure-limiting design, and the alleged surfaces appear to be incidental structural features, not intentional limiters. Even if physical contact occurs between 606c and 300c, this does not imply the claimed functional limitation, especially absent disclosure of pressure thresholds, tolerances, or spring-load mechanics.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claim recites a structural arrangement that functions to limit pressure (or force) during mating of the coaxial connectors. Huang discloses similar structural features – specifically, surfaces positioned such that they come into physical contact at a predetermined point during insertion (see figure 10C in Huang). When the surfaces 606c and 300c come into contact, they inherently restrict further movement of the contacting portion, thereby limiting the amount of pressure that can occur beyond that point. It is well established that a reference need not explicitly describe a feature as performing a particular function if the structure inherently or necessarily performs that function when used as intended (See MPEP § 2114).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834