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 .
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)(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) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Copper et al. [US 2025/0226603].
Regarding claim 10, Copper discloses wherein a signal is transmitted from a base end (fig. 1; 420) to a tip (tip of 400) of each of the contact pins (400), and a device (900) having an electrode (pad) is inserted in the connector (fig. 1; 100), and wherein each of the contact pins (400) has a contact point (fig. 3; 4110, 4120) and a first beam part (mark-up below; FB), the contact point (4120) being contacted with the electrode (pad), and the first beam part (FB) being electrically connected to the electrode (pad) in a contactless manner on a base end side (bottom of bCP; see mark-up below) from the contact point (4120).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
Regarding claim 11, Copper discloses a connector assembly comprising: the connector according to claim 1; and the device (900) inserted in the connector (100).
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) 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copper et al. [US 2025/0226603] in view of Ito et al. [US 2002/0022381].
Regarding claim 1, Copper discloses a connector comprising: a first pin group (Par [0048] Ln 1-3; one row of 400) having a plurality of contact pins (fig. 1; 400) aligned in a predetermined direction (fig. 1; Y); and a second pin group (Par [0048] Ln 1-3; other row of 400) having a plurality of contact pins (400) aligned in the predetermined direction (Y) and arranged so as to face the first pin group (one row of 400), wherein a device (fig. 1; 900) is inserted and extracted along an insertion-extraction direction (fig. 1; X) in and from a region (fig. 1; 330) between the first pin group (one row of 400) and the second pin group (other row of 400), and wherein each of the contact pins (400) has a curved part (see mark-up below from fig. 3; CP) curved convex toward the region (330) and including a contact point (fig. 3; 4120) contacted with an electrode (Par [0057] Ln 6-9; corresponding pad) of the device (900), a straight first beam part (mark-up; FB) having a tip (mark-up; tFB) and a base end (mark-up; bFB), the tip (tFB) of the first beam part (FB) being connected to a base end (mark-up; bCP) of the curved part (CP), and the base end (bFB) of the first beam part (FB) being bent (bFB bends as it transitions to SB, see mark-up below and fig. 3) so as to be spaced away from the region (330).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
Copper does not disclose wherein the first beam part has a length dimension such that, with the device inserted, a tip of the electrode is located between the base end of the first beam part and the tip of the first beam part in the insertion-extraction direction.
However, Ito teaches the first beam part (see mark-up #2 from fig. 7; A) has a length dimension (length of A) such that, with the device (fig. 1; 1) inserted, a tip (fig. 7; rear tip of 3) of the electrode (3) is located between the base end (mark-up #2; bA) of the first beam part (A) and the tip (mark-up #2; tA) of the first beam part (A) in the insertion-extraction direction (fig. 3; insertion arrow).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mark-up #2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first beam part having a length dimension such that, with the device inserted, a tip of the electrode is located between the base end of the first beam part and the tip of the first beam part in the insertion-extraction direction as suggested by Ito since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, and also for the benefit of providing an improved compact card connector.
Regarding claim 2, Copper modified by Ito has been discussed above. Copper discloses wherein each of the contact pins (400) has a second beam part (mark-up above; SB) having a tip (mark-up; tSB) and a base end (mark-up; bSB), the tip (tSB) of the second beam part (SB) being connected to the base end (bFB) of the first beam part (FB), and the base end (bSB) of the second beam part (SB) serving as a fixed end (fig. 1; area of 400 attached to 300 is configured not to move, see fig. 3) for elastic deformation, and wherein the first beam part (FB) has a smaller inclination angle (mark-up; angle FB makes with X) relative to the insertion-extraction direction (X) than the second beam part (SB; angle SB makes with X).
Regarding claim 3, Copper and Ito disclose (Copper) wherein the first beam part (FB) has an angle (angle of FB relative to X axis) relative to the electrode (corresponding pad of 900) that is greater than or equal to a certain angle and less than or equal to a certain angle with the device (900) inserted.
Copper and Ito do not disclose greater than or equal to -10 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the certain angles being greater than or equal to -10 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and also for the benefit of optimizing the resiliency of the contact pins in order to vastly improve the life cycle of said pins.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Copper discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein a distance from the first beam part to the electrode is less than or equal to 0.07 mm with the device inserted [claim 6]; wherein a distance from the first beam part to the electrode is greater than or equal to 0.03 mm with the device inserted [claim 7].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ito teaches a distance from the first beam part (mark-up #2 above; A) to the electrode (3) is less than or equal to a certain millimeter with the device (1) inserted; a distance from the first beam part (mark-up #2 above; A) to the electrode (3) is greater than or equal to a certain millimeter with the device (1) inserted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a distance from the first beam part to the electrode being less than or equal to 0.07 mm with the device inserted and a distance from the first beam part to the electrode being greater than or equal to 0.03 mm with the device inserted as suggested by Ito since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and also for the benefit of providing an improved compact card connector.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copper et al. [US 2025/0226603] and Ito et al. [US 2002/0022381] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cao et al. [US 2023/0283011].
Regarding claim 4, Copper discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein the first beam part is substantially parallel to the electrode with the device inserted.
However, Cao teaches the resilient arms (figs. 5, 8; 20) is parallel to the electrode (fig. 9; 203) with the device (fig. 3; 200) inserted (resilient arms 20 are biased toward each other as seen in fig. 10 and when 200 is inserted in fig. 9 it appears that 20 becomes parallel with 203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first beam part being substantially parallel to the electrode with the device inserted as suggested by Cao for the benefit of improving the contact pressure between a pin and an electrode for better signal transmission.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copper et al. [US 2025/0226603] and Ito et al. [US 2002/0022381] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. [2021/0351529].
Copper and Ito disclose all of the claim limitations except a conductive member electrically connected to a ground pin for grounding out of the contact pins of the first pin group and to a ground pin for grounding out of the contact pins of the second pin group.
However, Yang teaches a conductive member (fig. 5; 3) electrically connected to a ground pin (fig. 5; 22s that 3 contact) for grounding out of the contact pins (fig. 5; 22) of the first pin group (top 22) and to a ground pin (22s that 3 contact) for grounding out of the contact pins (22) of the second pin group (bottom 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a conductive member electrically connected to a ground pin for grounding out of the contact pins of the first pin group and to a ground pin for grounding out of the contact pins of the second pin group as suggested by Yang for the benefit of improving the quality of signals during transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach, provide or suggest wherein the first beam part of each of the contact pins of the first pin group and the first beam part of each of the contact pins of the second pin group are substantially parallel to each other with the device inserted, and wherein the first beam part has a length dimension such that, with the device inserted, a tip of the electrode is located between the base end of the first beam part and the tip of the first beam part in the insertion-extraction direction combined with the remaining limitations of the base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, attorney claims, “neither Copper nor Ito recognize the problem solved by the present invention, namely reduced signal losses by having the electrode end in the first beam part while also having the base end of the first beam part being bent to be spaced away from the region. This key feature provides advantages of reduced signal losses that neither Copper nor Ito recognize. Ito discloses an electrode end in the first beam part but also teaches the base end of the first beam part extending toward the region, see Fig. 7. Copper teaches the first beam part extending away from the region, but the electrode end is not in the first beam part. The Examiner asserts it would make the card connector more compact as the reason for the combination. Shortening the electrode end to be in the first beam part would not reduce the length of the connector card, as the dimensions of the rest of the parts would remain unchanged. Therefore, the Examiner's justification for the combination is unfounded. Since neither Copper nor Ito recognize the problem solved by claim 1, namely reduced signal losses, any combination of Copper and Ito would be improper hindsight reconstruction of claim 1 and, therefore, unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Attorney continued to state, “Claim 10 recites, inter alia, "the first beam part being electrically connected to the electrode in a contactless manner on a base end side from the contact point (emphasis added)." Copper does not disclose a first beam portion electrically connected without contact to the electrode. As shown in Fig. 3 in Copper there is significant gap between the first beam and the electrode and makes no mention of being electrically connected in a contactless manner. The only place that Copper mentions contactless electrical coupling is where Copper teaches that the surfaces 9110 and 9120 include a dielectric layer, providing capacitive coupling. Therefore, Copper does not disclose the first beam part being electrically connected to the electrode in a contactless manner on a base end side from the contact.”
Regarding claims 1 and 10, examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the attorney explained that the examiner’s motivation to combine Copper and Ito together would not result in reducing the length of the connector card, as the dimensions of the rest of the parts would remain unchanged; however, this conclusionary statement is mere speculation and the attorney doesn’t know exactly how someone of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the teaching of Ito and construct the modified connector card of Copper. Additionally, amended claim 1 (now canceled claim 5) only requires a different positioning of the tip of an electrode which is not a novel or ground breaking feature since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Secondly, according to attorney the problem to be solved by the present application is to: reduce signal losses by having the electrode end in the first beam part while also having the base end of the first beam part being bent to be spaced away from the region; but, the attorney failed to realize that Copper discloses reduction of signal losses (see Par [0032], Ln 8-10; dampen or eliminate undesirable electromagnetic characteristics) and the first beam part being bent to be spaced away from the region (see claim 1 rejection). In other words, the major problem i.e. reduce signal losses, and part of how to solve the major problem is disclosed by the primary reference Copper. Ito was used to teach how to solve the other part the problem by demonstrating the electrode end being in the first beam part is not a new feature and is common knowledge in art. Together, Copper and Ito discloses all of claim 1 limitations and solves the problem of the present invention, contrary to what the attorney stated.
Regarding claim 10, attorney declared Copper does not disclose a first beam portion electrically connected without contact to the electrode. On the contrary, conductive element 4020 (as shown in the mark-up above) is electrically connected to a pad of an inserted daughter card through contact portion 4120; and since the interpreted first beam part (FB) is monolithically integrated with contact portion 4120, Copper first beam part is most certainly electrically connected to the electrode in a contactless manner. Physically, FB is not touching the electrode of inserted card 900 and that is the very definition of contactless. The electrical signal from card 900 is transferred through the physical connection of contact portion 4120 to the non-physical first beam part FB. Therefore, claim 10 remains rejected.
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 MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831