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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan Feng et al. (CN 205429249) hereafter Pan in view of Kameyama (US 2002/0101041).
Regarding claim 1, Pan, figs. 6-7, discloses a connector configured to be mounted on a substrate 400, the connector comprising: a cylindrical external conductor 333 extending in an axis direction; a first seal member 340 provided in close contact with an outer circumferential face of the external conductor 333; a second seal member 350 provided in close contact with an inner circumferential face of the external conductor 333; and an internal conductor 331 inserted in the second seal member along the axis direction inside the external conductor (see fig. 7).
However, Pan does not disclose the first seal member and the second seal member have heat resistance durable against a temperature of reflow soldering performed when the connector is mounted on the substrate.
Kameyama, paragraph [0108] discloses, the connector main portion 31, secured to the printed circuit board 2 by solder, and the PCB connector, secured in such a manner, are exposed to heat during the soldering operation. Therefore, preferably, the rubber plug 7, mounted on the connector main portion 31 or the PCB connector, is made of silicone rubber having excellent heat resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first seal member and the second seal member have heat resistance durable against a temperature of reflow soldering performed when the connector is mounted on the substrate as taught by Kameyama, in order to avoid to change the shape of the sealing member and maintain the proper sealing there in between.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first and second sealing members are made of heat resistance durable against a temperature of reflow soldering performed when the connector is mounted on the substrate, since it has been held to be within the general ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Pan as modified by Kameyama, discloses the first seal member and the second seal member have heat resistance durable against a temperature of 200 °C or higher, as silicon rubber has excellent heat resistance durability.
Regarding claim 2, Pan as modified by Kameyama, discloses the first seal member and the second seal member have heat resistance durable against a temperature of 200 °C or higher, (since, silicone rubber having excellent heat resistance, Kameyama).
Regarding claim 3, Pan as modified by Kameyama, discloses the first seal member and the second seal member have heat resistance durable against a temperature of 200 °C or higher for 30 seconds or longer with a peak temperature being 260 °C (since, silicone rubber having excellent heat resistance, Kameyama).
Regarding claim 4, Pan as modified by Kameyama, discloses a connector assembly comprising and a substrate 400 with the internal conductor 331 (at 331b) the external conductor 333 (335) mounted on a surface of the substrate 400.
Regarding claim 5, Pan as modified by Kameyama, discloses a camera module (see, figs. 1-4, and section of Background technology) comprising: the connector assembly according to claim 4; and a casing 310, 320 provided with a fitting part 311 to which an external connector 330 is configured to be fitted, wherein the connector mounted on the connector assembly is inserted in the casing with the first seal member provided between the connector and the casing.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan and Kameyama, as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Miyamoto (US 2003/0027463).
Regarding claims 6, Miyamoto discloses the method steps reflow step (see paragraph [0137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflow method steps as taught by Miyamoto, in order to avoid to change in shape of the sealing member and maintain the proper sealing there in between.
Regarding claims 7, Pan and Kameyama, as modified by Miyamoto, discloses the temperature environment where the solder melts is at 200 °C or higher.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan and Kameyama, and Miyamoto, as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Eagle et al. (US 7,488,192) hereafter Eagle.
Regarding claims 8, Pan and Kameyama, and Miyamoto, as modified by Eagle, discloses a preheat step before the soldering step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a preheat step before the soldering step as taught by Eagle to expose the substrate having the installed connector to a temperature environment at 150 °C or higher and 180 °C or lower for 60 seconds or longer, and wherein the soldering step is to expose the substrate having the installed connector to a temperature environment at 200 °C or higher and 260 °C or lower for 30 seconds or longer in order to avoid to change in shape of the sealing member and maintain the proper sealing there in between.
It is to be noted that, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the method steps of claims 6-8 in order to connect each components of the assembly and used as intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that, “To assemble Pan's connector, at least the following two steps are required:
(1) a step of joining the soldering leg 334 to the control circuit board 400 by soldering; and (2) a step of attaching the first sealing body 340.
However, Pan does not disclose the order in which these steps are performed.
Therefore, even a person skilled in the art reviewing Pan would not be able to unambiguously understand whether soldering (soldering for mounting the soldering leg 334 to the control circuit board 400) is performed in an environment where the sealing body 340 is exposed to heat. To state simply: Pan does not disclose whether step (1) is performed first or step (2) is performed first. If step (1) is performed first, the sealing body 340 is not exposed to heat resulting from soldering. That is, the premise that the first sealing body 340 is exposed to heat resulting from soldering is not disclosed in Pan and is merely hindsight derived from the present application.
If the first sealing body 340 is not exposed to heat resulting from soldering, there is no technical significance or advantage in applying Kameyama's teaching. If Kameyama's teaching is to be applied, the Examiner must establish the premise that the first sealing body 340 is exposed to heat resulting from soldering. The Examiner has not made such a showing, and Pan provides no such disclosure”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as this argument is not consistent with the claim language, as the presence or absence of a steps of an assembling connector is not a part of the claimed subject matter.
Moreover, Appellant's argument is directed to the individual reference of Pan, while the rejection is based on the combination of Pan in view of Kameyama. The secondary reference of Kameyama is used for the feature of securing the connector main portion 31, to the printed circuit board 2 by solder, and the PCB connector, secured in such a manner, are exposed to heat during the soldering operation. Therefore, preferably, the rubber plug 7, mounted on the connector main portion 31 or the PCB connector, is made of silicone rubber having excellent heat resistance. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, the applicant argument is based on a product-by-process claim limitations and even though such claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, as in the present situation, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Applicant also argues that, “Additionally, Kameyama merely discloses that "The connector main portion 31, secured to the printed circuit board 2 by solder, and the PCB connector, secured in such a manner, are exposed to heat during the soldering operation. Therefore, preferably, the rubber plug 7, mounted on the connector main portion 31 or the PCB connector, is made of silicone rubber having excellent heat resistance." (paragraph [0108]).
In terms of the connector configuration, Kameyama's rubber plug 7 corresponds to the "second seal member" of claim 1. Thus, Kameyama does not disclose a component corresponding to the "first seal member." As described in paragraphs [0042]-[0048], the outer bush 120 (first seal member) and the inner bush 130 (second seal member) are both formed of a heat-resistant silicone rubber and provide waterproofness between different interfaces. The outer bush 120 provides waterproofness between the external terminal 110 and the camera case 300, while the inner bush 130 provides waterproofness between the contact pin 140 and the external terminal 110. Neither Pan nor Kameyama teach or suggest providing both first and second seal members with heat resistance durable against reflow soldering temperatures in this structural arrangement. Accordingly, even if a person skilled in the art were to review Kameyama's invention, they would not arrive at the idea of providing heat resistance to a component corresponding to the first seal member”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed above that appellant's argument is directed to the individual reference of Kameyama, while the rejection is based on the combination of Pan in view of Pan”. This is merely an allegation as there is no support provided.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the applicant argues that, “The present claims are significant in that a material having predetermined heat resistance was specified from among numerous heat-resistant materials based on the inventors' knowledge (the temperature profile illustrated in Fig. 14). As described in paragraphs [0069]-[0077], the inventors carefully selected materials based on specific indices including compression set, hardness change, tensile strength, tensile change, extension, and extension change”. The examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed in rejection that this limitations obvious by selecting preferred material, and the material the applicant using in these claims are not an invention, they are known and the applicant is using this material, therefore these limitations are not novel.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that, “Simply knowing that "silicone rubber [has] excellent heat resistance" does not provide guidance regarding the specific temperature ranges and durations recited in claims 2 and 3”. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the providing a guidance’. This are argument is not supported by the claim language, as it is not a part of the claimed subject matter. Applicant appears to be impermissibly reading features from the specification into the claim. See MPEP 2111.01 II.
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 HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831