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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the select cable is a rear-ward most electrical cable among all of the electrical cables of claim 159 and wherein the group of the electrical cables does not include the select one of the plurality of electrical cables of claim 160 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 Objections
Claims 149, 152-154 and 161 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 149 line 3 recites, “shield 66 that,” claim should be amended to recite –shield that--. Claim 154 line 3 has the same issue.
Claim 152 line 2 recites, “1.1 mm pitch,” claim should be amended to recite –1.5 mm pitch--. Claim 153 line 2 has the same issue.
Claim 161 line 2 recites, “respect at,” claim should be amended to recite –respect to at--
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 159 and 160 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.
The recitations of claim 159 lines 1-2 are vague and indefinite because the examiner is unclear how “the select cable” is the only cable that is the most rearward from all of the other cables. From the examiner’s understanding, the only type of electrical connectors that are disclosed are connectors that comprises multiple rows of cables. In one row of cables, all the cables are aligned together. According to the Drawings, there is not one single cable that is alone or aligned differently than the plurality of rows of connectors 24 and 114; and clearly of figs. 1-9b, 13 and 15 there is a most rearward row of cables but not one single most rearward cable. Which figure best show the one select cable that is the most rearward from the plurality of rows? Claim 160 lines 1-2 is also vague and indefinite for similar reasoning stated above. For examination purposes the “select cable” will be interpreted as the “select row of cables”.
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.
Claim(s) 77-82, 143-148, 151-153 and 156 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherer et al. [US 9,071,001].
Regarding claim 77, Scherer discloses an electrical cable connector that carries twinaxial cables (fig. 1a; 108), wherein two parallel, adjacent rows (fig. 2; two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a pitch (spacing between the two rows of 108) of approximately a certain millimeter.
Regarding claim 147, Scherer discloses wherein the two parallel, adjacent rows (two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a certain mm pitch in a width direction (see mark-up below from fig. 2; WD), the twinaxial cables (108) have respective heights (height of 108) and respective widths (width of 108) that are less than the respective heights, and the respective widths (width of 108) are measured along the width direction (WD).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
Regarding claim 148, Scherer discloses wherein the two parallel, adjacent rows (two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a certain mm pitch in a width direction (WD), and the twinaxial cables (108) have respective widths (width of 108) in the width direction (WD) that are within a certain range.
Regarding claims 77, 147, 148, Scherer does not disclose the certain millimeter pitch being 1.1 mm [claims 77, 147]; the certain millimeter pitch being 1.1 mm and the width being less than 0.055 inches [claim 148].
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 1.1 mm pitch and the width being less than 0.055 inches because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have 1.1 mm pitch between the rows and the cable being less than 0.055 inches since the applicant has not established that the above pitch and width values are critical to the functionality of the invention; also it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), furthermore, it would have been obvious for the benefit of having an optimized compact high density cable connector.
Regarding claim 78, Scherer discloses an electrical cable connector that carries twinaxial cables (fig. 1a; 108), wherein two parallel, adjacent rows (fig. 2; two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a pitch (spacing between the two rows of 108) of approximately a certain millimeter.
Regarding claim 152, Scherer discloses wherein the two parallel, adjacent rows (two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a certain mm pitch in a width direction (mark-up above; WD), the twinaxial cables (108) have respective heights (height of 108) and respective widths (width of 108) that are less than the respective heights, and the respective widths (width of 108) are measured along the width direction (WD).
Regarding claim 153, Scherer discloses wherein the two parallel, adjacent rows (two 108 rows of 100) of twinaxial cables (108) are spaced apart by a certain mm pitch in a width direction (WD), and the twinaxial cables (108) have respective widths (width of 108) in the width direction (WD) that are within a certain range.
Regarding claims 78, 152, 153, Scherer does not disclose the certain millimeter pitch being 1.5 and 1.1 mm [claims 78, 152]; the certain millimeter pitch being 1.1 mm and the width being less than 0.055 inches [claim 153].
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 1.5 and 1.1 mm pitch and the width being less than 0.055 inches because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have 1.5/1.1 mm pitch between the rows and the cable being less than 0.055 inches since the applicant has not established that the above pitch and width values are critical to the functionality of the invention; also it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), furthermore, it would have been obvious for the benefit of having an optimized compact high density cable connector.
Regarding claim 79, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein each of the twinaxial cables (108) carries a pair of cable mating conductors (fig. 1c; 114).
Regarding claim 80, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the electrical cable connector (100) further comprises a cable shield (fig. 1c; 110) that extends approximately 360 degrees around the pair of cable mating conductors (114).
Regarding claim 81, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the electrical cable connector (100) is configured to be plugged into or onto a corresponding receptacle connector (fig. 3; 200).
Regarding claim 82, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the corresponding receptacle connector (200) comprises a shroud (housing of 200) configured to be mounted to a substrate (200 is configured to be mounted to a circuit board, see Col 1 Ln 14-20).
Regarding claim 143, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein each of the twinaxial cables (108) carries a pair of cable mating conductors (fig. 1c; 114).
Regarding claim 144, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the electrical cable connector (100) further comprises a cable shield (fig. 1c; 110) that extends approximately 360 degrees around the pair of cable mating conductors (114).
Regarding claim 145, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the electrical cable connector (100) is configured to be plugged into or onto a corresponding receptacle connector (fig. 3; 200).
Regarding claim 146, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein the corresponding receptacle connector (200) comprises a shroud (housing of 200) configured to be mounted to a substrate (200 is configured to be mounted to a circuit board, see Col 1 Ln 14-20).
Regarding claim 151, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein differential signal pairs (fig. 1c; 126; 108 is an example of a twinaxial cable, therefore it is configured to transmit differential signals) of the electrical connector (100) and the twinaxial cables (108) mounted to respective electrical contacts (fig. 1c; 114) of the differential signal pairs (126) are configured to transfer certain gbps at a certain cross talk rate.
Scherer do not explicitly disclose the differential signal pairs being configured to transfer differential signals at data transfer rates of up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair of the differential signal pairs.
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 differential signal pairs being configured to transfer differential signals at data transfer rates of up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair of the differential signal pairs because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement the above signal parameters, since applicant has not disclosed that transferring differential signals up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair solves any stated problem or establishes any criticality to the function of the invention, also it would be obvious for the benefit of having an improved twinaxial cable connector that is highly capable of transferring complex high speed data signals.
Regarding claim 156, modified Scherer has been discussed above. Scherer discloses wherein differential signal pairs (fig. 1c; 126; 108 is an example of a twinaxial cable, therefore it is configured to transmit differential signals) of the electrical connector (100) and the twinaxial cables (108) mounted to respective electrical contacts (fig. 1c; 114) of the differential signal pairs (126) are configured to transfer certain gbps at a certain cross talk rate.
Scherer do not explicitly disclose the differential signal pairs being configured to transfer differential signals at data transfer rates of up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair of the differential signal pairs.
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 differential signal pairs being configured to transfer differential signals at data transfer rates of up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair of the differential signal pairs because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement the above signal parameters, since applicant has not disclosed that transferring differential signals up to and including 56 Gigabits/second while producing no more than six percent worst-case, multi-active cross talk on a victim differential signal pair solves any stated problem or establishes any criticality to the function of the invention, also it would be obvious for the benefit of having an improved twinaxial cable connector that is highly capable of transferring complex high speed data signals.
Claim(s) 83, 158-160 and 163 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz et al. [US 11,205,877] in view of Champion et al. [US 10,680,364].
Regarding claim 83, Diaz discloses an electrical connector comprising: a connector housing (fig. 87; 1340) having a mounting interface (fig. 87; 1362) that is configured to face an underlying substrate (fig. 86; 2), and a cable interface (fig. 87; rear flat surface of 1340 where 1008 extends from), a plurality of electrical contacts (fig. 91; 1030a) supported by the connector housing (1340), the electrical contacts (1030a) having respective mounting ends (fig. 91; tip of 1030a that abuts 2) configured to be mounted to the substrate (2), and cable attachment ends (fig. 44; ends of 1030a that attach to 22) attached to respective signal conductors (see Col 16 Ln 14-15; signal conductors) of the electrical cables (20), respectively, and a plurality of electrical cables (fig. 87; 1008 contains a plurality of cables 20, see Col 16 Ln 12-15) having respective signal conductors (22) that are in contact with respective ones of the cable attachment ends (ends of 1030a that attach to 22) so as to mount the electrical cables (20) to the electrical contacts (1030a), respectively, wherein 1) a group of the electrical cables (1008 group) a) extends from the electrical contacts (1030a) in an oblique direction (fig. 44-46; 20 is oriented at an oblique angle relative to 1030a) with respect to each of the mounting interface (1362) and the cable interface (rear flat surface of 1340 where 1008 extends from), and b) exits the connector housing (1340) along a direction parallel (horizontal direction) to the mounting interface (1362), and wherein the electrical contacts (1030a) extend along respective first paths (fig. 91; diagonal path of 1030a) from the respective mounting ends (tip of 1030a that abuts 2) to the respective cable attachment ends (ends of 1030a that attach to 22), and the first paths (diagonal path of 1030a) are oblique to each of the mounting interface (bottom surface of 1342 that 1348 is attached to) and the cable interface (rear end of 1340 where 1008 extends from).
Diaz does not disclose an entirety of an outer electrically insulative jacket of a select one of the plurality of electrical cables is oriented substantially along a direction parallel to the mounting interface as it extends through the housing.
However, Champion teaches an outer electrically insulative jacket (fig. 6; 206 of bottom 140) of a select one (fig. 6; 142 of bottom 140) of the plurality of electrical cables (140) is oriented substantially along a direction (figs. 1, 10, 11; horizontal direction) parallel to the mounting interface (bottom horizontal surface of 106) as it extends through the housing (housing of 106).
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 an entirety of an outer electrically insulative jacket of a select one of the plurality of electrical cables is oriented substantially along a direction parallel to the mounting interface as it extends through the housing as suggested by Champion for the benefit of optimizing cable arrangement in order to better facilitate mating of two connectors.
Regarding claim 158, Diaz modified by Champion has been discussed above. Diaz discloses wherein the cable interface (rear flat surface of 1340 where 1008 extends from) is oriented perpendicular to the mounting interface (1362).
Regarding claim 159, Diaz modified by Champion has been discussed above. Diaz discloses the select cable (fig. 97; rear row of 20) is a rear-ward most electrical cable (20) among all of the electrical cables (front and rear row of 20).
Regarding claim 160, Diaz modified by Champion has been discussed above. Diaz discloses wherein the group of the electrical cables (front row of 20) does not include the select one (rear row of 20) of the plurality of electrical cables (20).
Regarding claim 163, Diaz discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein the electrical cables are spaced from each other a distance along a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the mounting interface, and the distance between at least one pair of the electrical cables is different than the distance between at least one other pair of the electrical cables.
However, Champion teaches the electrical cables (fig. 7; 140) are spaced from each other a distance (space between 140) along a longitudinal direction (horizontal) that is parallel to the mounting interface (bottom horizontal surface of 106), and the distance between at least one pair (fig. 7; first two 140) of the electrical cables (140) is different than the distance between at least one other pair (fig. 7; first and third 140) of the electrical cables (140).
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 electrical cables are spaced from each other a distance along a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the mounting interface, and the distance between at least one pair of the electrical cables is different than the distance between at least one other pair of the electrical cables as suggested by Champion 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 improving the arrangement of cables in an electrical connector.
Claim(s) 149, 150, 154, 155 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherer et al. [US 9,071,001] in view of Diaz et al. [US 11,205,877].
Regarding claims 149 and 154, Scherer discloses each of the twinaxial cables (108) comprises first and second electrical conductors (fig. 1c; 126) and other layers of the twinaxial cable (fig. 1c).
Regarding claims 149, 150, 154 and 155, Scherer does not explicitly disclose an inner dielectric material that surrounds the electrical signal conductors, an electrical shield that surrounds the inner dielectric material, and an outer electrically insulative jacket that surrounds the inner dielectric material, wherein the outer electrically insulative jacket is a tape [claims 149 and 154]; wherein the tape has a thickness in a range from approximately 0.00025 inches to approximately 0.005 inches [claims 150 and 155].
Regarding claims 149, 150, 154 and 155, Diaz teaches an inner dielectric material (fig. 29; 24) that surrounds the electrical signal conductors (fig. 29; 22), an electrical shield (fig. 29; 26) that surrounds the inner dielectric material (24), and an outer electrically insulative jacket (fig. 29; 228) that surrounds the inner dielectric material (24), wherein the outer electrically insulative jacket (28) is a sheath; the sheath (28) has a thickness within a certain range.
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 an inner dielectric material that surrounds the electrical signal conductors, an electrical shield that surrounds the inner dielectric material, and an outer electrically insulative jacket that surrounds the inner dielectric material, wherein the outer electrically insulative jacket is a tape and the tape having a thickness in a range from approximately 0.00025 inches to approximately 0.005 inches as suggested by Diaz since the typical structure of a twinaxial cable having conductors, a dielectric layer, shielding layer and a insulating jacket is old and well known in the art and 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, also it would have been obvious for the benefit of providing an improved shielded shield twinaxial cable for an optimized compact cable connector.
Claim(s) 157 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz et al. [US 11,205,877] and Champion et al. [US 10,680,364] as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of Cartier, Jr. et al. [US 12,166,304].
Diaz and Champion disclose all of the claim limitations except wherein the cable interface is oriented obliquely relative to the mounting interface.
However, Cartier teaches the cable interface (fig. 8; 126) is oriented obliquely relative to the mounting interface (fig. 8; 131).
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 cable interface oriented obliquely relative to the mounting interface as suggested by Cartier because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an obliquely cable interface since applicant has not disclosed that having an obliquely cable interface is essential the function of the invention and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the cable interface being perpendicular to the mounting interface, and also for the benefit of providing improved noise suppression of a high frequency compact connector by allowing adequate spacing between conductors.
Claim(s) 161 and 162 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz et al. [US 11,205,877] and Champion et al. [US 10,680,364] as applied to claim 83 above, and further in view of Liao [US 2017/0077621].
Regarding claim 161, Diaz and Champion disclose all of the claimed limitations except wherein the path of at least one of the electrical contacts is oriented along a different slope with respect at least one other of the electrical contacts.
However, Liao teaches the path (fig. 4; path of 33 and 34) of at least one of the electrical contacts (fig. 3; 30) is oriented along a different slope (slope of 33 of 34) with respect at least one other of the electrical contacts (fig. 4; 23, 24).
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 path of at least one of the electrical contacts is oriented along a different slope with respect at least one other of the electrical contacts as suggested by Liao 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 improving the layout of cables for a cable connector.
Regarding claim 162, Diaz and Champion modified by Liao has been discussed above. Diaz discloses wherein all of the plurality of electrical cables (20) exits the connector housing (1340) along the direction (horizontal) parallel to the mounting interface (1362).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 77 and 78, attorney claims, “in response, applicant notes that MPEP 2121.01 requires a modification to the prior art to be enabling without undue experimentation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have the desire to modify Scherer's disclosure such that the rows of twinaxial cables 108 are spaced apart by a pitch of approximately 1.1 (claim 77) or 1.5 mm (claim 78), the Office Action fails to establish that such a modification would be achieved by one having ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation. Relatedly, Applicant asserts that an attempt to modify Scherer in the manner set forth in the Office Action would render the Scherer connector unsatisfactory for its intended purpose under MPEP 2143.01(V).”
Attorney continued, “to begin, the Office Action fails to assert, in the first instance, the how Scherer would be modified by one having ordinary skill in the art such that the rows of twinaxial cables 208 would be spaced apart by a pitch of approximately 1.1 mm as recited in claim 77 (or 1.5 mm as recited in claim 78). Scherer discloses that the twinaxial cables have electrical conductors 126 that are mounted to respective electrical contacts 114 of the electrical connector 102. In particular, rear connecting portions 114c of the electrical contacts are electrically connected to the conductors 126 of electrical cables 108 (see Col. 4, lines 20-32). In order for Scherer's connector 102 to be modified to achieve the pitch recited in claim 1, the electrical contacts 114 would be spaced closer together.”
Continuing, “however, it is a basic tenet of connector design that bringing electrical contacts closer risks an increase of unwanted crosstalk. Further, high speed signals are more susceptible to crosstalk than low speed signals. In this regard, Scherer discloses that the electrical connector assembly achieves the transmission of high speed signals (see Col. 9, lines 20-46). The Office Action has failed to establish how one having ordinary skill in the art would redesign Scherer's electrical connector 102 without underuse experimentation such that the electrical contacts provide the cable pitches recited in claims 77 and 78 without causing crosstalk to increase, particularly given Scherer's high speed signals. In this regard, the Office Action has failed to establish that one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Scherer in the manner recited in the Office Action without undue experimentation. Accordingly, the proposed modification to Scherer is non-enabled. To the extent that Scherer's high speed signals would be degraded by the increased crosstalk, as would be predictable when spacing the rows of electrical contacts 114 of Scherer closer together, Scherer would be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
Attorney also states, “further, an attempt to modify Scherer's connector 102 to achieve the cable pitch recited in claim 1 would change the principle of operation of Scherer's connector, contrary to MPEP 2143.01(VI). According to the MPEP, if the proposed modification to a prior art reference would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. The MPEP cites to In re Ratti, which ruled that a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in the primary reference, as well as a change in the basic principle under which the primary reference construction was designed to operate did not render the claims prima facie obvious (In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959)).”
First, attorney stated that the office failed to explain how the modification of “wire spacing/pitch” would be achieved by someone of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To start, claims 77 and 78 claim a broad structure that do not establish any complex structure or critical functionality. What is positively claimed in both claims is a connector with twin ax cables that are separated by a certain dimension. That is it. A connector that contains spaced rows of twin ax cables is an old and well know technology as shown by the many references of record provided by the examiner and the attorney. What is also known in the art or by someone ordinarily skilled in the art is that twin ax cables will always be insulated especially when extending out of a device or connector. With that common knowledge, combined with the extremely broad nature of the claimed structure, making spacing/pitch adjustments to the rows of twin ax cables does not require any undue experimentation or significant redesign; having the rows of twin ax cables spaced 1.1 or 1.5 mm is not a novel feature. In fact, 1.1 or 1.5 mm spacing is a clear design choice absent any claimed complex/critical structural limitations, which claims 77 and 78 undeniably lacks.
Next, the attorney stated that modifying the pitch between Scherer’s rows of twin ax cables would result in the electrical contacts 114 being closer together; and because of the electrical contacts being closer more cross talk would be introduced. Examiner disagrees. The attorney has improperly assumed that the only way to modify the spacing between the rows of Scherer’s twin ax cables 108 would be to ruin the signal quality of the high-speed connector. This is false because someone of ordinary skill in the art would know that moving electrical contacts closer together would result in more interference. Some one of ordinary skill in the art would also know that the insulated part of Scherer’s twin ax cables 108 are flexible, especially the section extending out of the connector. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would find an adjustment/modification to the row pitch easily doable without changing the spacing between contacts 114, based upon the flexible nature.
Lastly, attorney said that the pitch modification would change the principle of operation of Scherer’s connector. Examiner disagrees. Contrary to the attorney, the Specification provided a benefit to having the 1.1 and 1.5 mm pitch between rows but criticality was not establish for the pitch values and it absolutely would appear the invention would still function with other pitch values. Again, as stated above modifying the pitch distance between rows of twin ax cables to 1.1 or 1.5 mm is not a novel feature and is merely a design choice. Therefore, Scherer’s operation would not change and as a result claims 77 and 78 remain 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