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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN111446573A).
With regard to claim 1, Huang teaches, as shown in figures 9-14 and taught in the Abstract of the translation: “A lead module (6 and 9) comprising: a plurality of lead pairs 71, wherein each of the lead pairs 71 comprises two leads parallel to each other, the plurality of lead pairs 71 includes two adjacent lead pairs 71 spaced apart by a predetermined distance, each of the leads comprises a pin end part 702, a contact end part 701, and a body part 703, and the body part 703 is between the pin end part 702 and the contact end part 701; and two shielding pieces 9, wherein the two shielding pieces 9 each comprise a conductive material, the two shielding pieces 9 are parallel to each other, the plurality of lead pairs 71 are sandwiched between the two shielding pieces 9, and the plurality of lead pairs 71 are fastened relative to the two shielding pieces 9; wherein the shielding pieces on two sides of the lead pairs are configured as a ground wire (the Abstract teaches grounding of a shielding sheet) and a shielding element (the Abstract teaches the other of the sheets being a least a shielding element)”.
With regard to claim 2, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Huang also teaches, as shown in figures 9-14: “wherein the plurality of lead pairs 71 are positioned between the two shielding pieces 9 in a direction perpendicular to a surface of either of the two shielding pieces 9”.
With regard to claim 3, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 2”, as shown above.
Huang also teaches, as shown in figures 9-14: “wherein the lead module further comprises at least one fastening member 6 made of a non-conductive insulation material, the fastening member 6 is located between the two shielding pieces 9 and fastened to the two shielding pieces 9, and a part of the body part 703 of each of the leads 71 is embedded in the fastening member 6, so that the plurality of lead pairs 71 are fastened relative to the two shielding pieces 9 by at least the fastening member 6”.
With regard to claim 4, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 3”, as shown above.
Huang also teaches, as shown in figures 9-14: “wherein in the plurality of lead pairs 71, the body part 703 of each of the leads 71 comprises an embedded part (portion of 6 embedded in 6 in figure 12) embedded in the fastening member 6 and an exposed part (portion of 703 exposed in figure 12) other than the embedded part, so that in the plurality of lead pairs 71, at least a part of a surface that is of each exposed part and that faces one of the two shielding pieces 9 is located in a first plane, and the first plane is parallel to a plane in which the surface of either of the two shielding pieces 9 is located”.
With regard to claim 5, Huang teaches:” The lead module according to claim 4”, as shown above.
Huang also teaches, as shown in figures 9-14: “wherein in the direction perpendicular to the surface of either of the two shielding pieces 9, distances between the exposed parts of all of the leads and each of the two shielding pieces are equal”.
With regard to claim 13, Huang teaches, as shown in figures 9-14 and taught in the Abstract of the translation: “An electrical connector 200 comprising: one or more lead modules (6 and 9) comprising: a plurality of lead pairs 71, wherein each of the lead pairs 71 comprises two leads parallel to each other, the plurality of lead pairs 71 includes two adjacent lead pairs spaced apart by a predetermined distance, each of the leads comprises a pin end part 702, a contact end part 701, and a body part 703, and the body part 703 is between the pin end part 702 and the contact end part 701; and two shielding pieces 9, wherein the two shielding pieces 9 each comprise a conductive material, the two shielding pieces 9 are parallel to each other, the plurality of lead pairs 71 are sandwiched between the two shielding pieces 9, and the plurality of lead pairs 71 are fastened relative to the two shielding pieces 9; wherein the shielding pieces 9 on two sides of the lead pairs 71 are configured as a ground wire (the Abstract teaches grounding of a shielding sheet) and a shielding element (the Abstract teaches the other of the sheets being a least a shielding element)”.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN111446573A) in view of Trout et al. (2020/0227866).
With regard to claim 6, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 4”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein in the direction perpendicular to the surface of either of the two shielding pieces, a spacing between the two shielding pieces is D1, and in the two adjacent lead pairs, a minimum distance between exposed parts of two adjacent leads that are respectively located in different lead pairs is D2, and D1 < D2 is satisfied”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Trout teaches, as shown in figures 1-17: “wherein in the direction perpendicular to the surface of either of the two shielding pieces 180 and 182, a spacing between the two shielding pieces is D1, and in the two adjacent lead pairs (lead pairs in the lower two pairs of 332 in figure 17), a minimum distance between exposed parts of two adjacent leads (distance between the two leads that will be mounted in the middle two 332 in figure 17) that are respectively located in different lead pairs is D2, and D1 < D2 is satisfied”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Trout with the invention of Huang in order to provide shielding between the pairs of signal contacts (Trout, paragraph 50).
With regard to claim 7, Huang as modified by Trout teaches: “The lead module according to claim 6”, as shown above.
Neither Huang nor Trout specifically teach: “wherein 0.6 mm ≤ D1 ≤ 1.1 mm; and/or 1.1 mm ≤ D2 ≤ 1.5 mm”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the range of D1 to satisfy 0.6 mm ≤ D1 ≤ 1.1 mm and/or D2 to satisfy 1.1 mm ≤ D2 ≤ 1.5 mm in order to be able to scale down the size of the connector. Also, 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.
With regard to claim 8, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 4”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein in each of the lead pairs, a minimum distance between exposed parts of two of the leads is less than a minimum distance between the exposed part of each of the leads and an inner surface of either of the two shielding pieces”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Trout teaches, as shown in figures 1-17: “wherein in each of the lead pairs, a minimum distance between exposed parts of two (top two 124 in figure 11) of the leads 124 is less than a minimum distance between the exposed part of each of the leads 124 and an inner surface of either of the two shielding pieces 180”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Trout with the invention of Huang in order to provide shielding between the pairs of signal contacts (Trout, paragraph 50).
With regard to claim 9, Huang as modified by Trout teach: “The lead module according to claim 8”, as shown above.
Neither Yin nor Trout specifically teach: “wherein the minimum distance between the exposed parts of the two leads is greater than or eq ual to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 0.25 mm; and/or the minimum distance between the exposed part of each of the leads and the inner surface of either of the shielding pieces is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.4 mm”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the range of the minimum distance between the exposed parts of the two leads to be greater than or eq ual to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 0.25 mm and/or greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.4 mm in order to be able to scale down the size of the connector. Also, 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN111446573A) in view of Kolak et al. (11,682,864).
With regard to claim 10, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 4”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein for each of the leads, a length of the exposed part is greater than a length of the embedded part”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kolak teaches, as shown in figures 5H-5I: “wherein for each of the leads 114a-n, a length of the exposed part (portion between 115a-n in figure 5H) is greater than a length of the embedded part (portion held in 115a-n in figure 5H)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kolak with the invention of Huang in order to align and support the leads (Kolak, column 23 lines 42-49).
With regard to claim 11, Huang as modified by Kolak teaches: “The lead module according to claim 10”, as shown above.
Kolak also teaches, as shown in figures 5H-5I: “wherein for each of the leads 114a-n, the length of the exposed part is greater than or equal to three times the length of the embedded part”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kolak with the invention of Huang as modified by Kolak in order to align and support the leads (Kolak, column 23 lines 42-49).
Claims 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN111446573A) in view of Stokoe et al. (2017/0179652).
With regard to claim 12, Huang teaches: “The lead module according to claim 3”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein the fastening member has protrusion parts protruding toward the two shielding pieces, the two shielding pieces each have a mounting hole corresponding to the protrusion parts of the fastening member, and the fastening member is mounted and fastened to the two shielding pieces through fit installation between the protrusion parts of the fastening member and the mounting holes of the two shielding pieces; or the two shielding pieces each have a protrusion part protruding toward the fastening member, the fastening member has a mounting holes corresponding to the protrusion parts of the two shielding pieces, and the fastening member is mounted and fastened to the two shielding pieces through fit installation between the protrusion parts of the two shielding pieces and the mounting holes of the fastening member”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Stokoe teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the fastening member 300 has protrusion parts 62 protruding toward the two shielding pieces 200 and 400, the two shielding pieces each have a mounting hole 64 corresponding to the protrusion parts 62 of the fastening member 300, and the fastening member 300 is mounted and fastened to the two shielding pieces through fit installation between the protrusion parts 62 of the fastening member 300 and the mounting holes 64 of the two shielding pieces; or the two shielding pieces each have a protrusion part protruding toward the fastening member, the fastening member has a mounting holes corresponding to the protrusion parts of the two shielding pieces, and the fastening member is mounted and fastened to the two shielding pieces through fit installation between the protrusion parts of the two shielding pieces and the mounting holes of the fastening member”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang in order to align the fastening member and the shielding pieces (Stokoe, paragraph 61).
With regard to claim 14, Huang teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 13”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein the one or more lead modules includes a plurality of lead modules that are arranged in a stacked manner in which the shielding pieces and of all the lead modules are parallel”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Stokoe teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the one or more lead modules 300 includes a plurality of lead modules 300 that are arranged in a stacked manner in which the shielding pieces 200 and 400 of all the lead modules 300 are parallel”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang in order to provide enhanced shielding for the conductors in the lead frames of an electrical assembly (Stokoe, paragraphs 9-10).
With regard to claim 15, Huang as modified by Stokoe teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 14”, as shown above.
Stokoe also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein pin end parts of all the lead modules 300 are arranged in a matrix manner, to form a pin end part of the electrical connector 10; and contact end parts (portions of 302 located at end 320 in figure 3D) of all the lead modules 300 are arranged in a matrix manner, to form a contact end part 320 of the electrical connector 10”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang as modified by Stokoe in order to provide enhanced shielding for the conductors in the lead frames of an electrical assembly (Stokoe, paragraphs 9-10).
With regard to claim 16, Huang as modified by Stokoe teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 14”, as shown above.
Neither Huang nor Stokoe teach: “wherein the one or more lead modules includes adjacent lead modules that share one of the shielding pieces”. However, Stokoe teaches, as shown in figures 10A-10B and taught in paragraphs 65-69, the shielding pieces 200 and 400 between lead modules 300 being electrically connected. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the shielding pieces and connecting chevrons 70 as an integral piece in order to ensure electrical connection (Stokoe, paragraph 65). Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
With regard to claim 17, Huang teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 13”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “wherein the one or more lead modules includes a plurality of lead modules, the electrical connector further comprises a fastening frame, and the fastening frame is assembled with the plurality of lead modules, so that the plurality of the lead modules are relatively fastened”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Stokoe teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the one or more lead modules 300 includes a plurality of lead modules 300, the electrical connector 10 further comprises a fastening frame 310, and the fastening frame 310 is assembled with the plurality of lead modules 300, so that the plurality of the lead modules 300 are relatively fastened”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang in order to hold the leads in place.
With regard to claim 18, Huang teaches: “A connector component, comprising the electrical connector according to claim 13”, as shown above.
Huang does not teach: “and an interconnection electrical connector configured to connect to the electrical connector”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Stokoe teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “and an interconnection electrical connector 20 configured to connect to the electrical connector 10”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang in order to connect the electrical connector to a printed circuit board (Stokoe, paragraph 35).
With regard to claim 19, Huang as modified by Stokoe teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 18”, as shown above.
Stokoe also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in paragraph 35: “wherein the electrical connector 10 and the interconnection electrical connector 20 are respectively disposed on two circuit boards (daughter card and printed circuit board described in paragraph 35) disposed perpendicularly to each other (the opposite connecting ends of 10 and 20 connected to the boards are perpendicular to one another and would need to connect to perpendicular boards)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Stokoe with the invention of Huang in order to connect the electrical connector to a printed circuit board (Stokoe, paragraph 35).
With regard to claim 20, Huang as modified by Stokoe teaches: “The electrical connector according to claim 18”, as shown above.
Neither Huang nor Stokoe teaches: “wherein the electrical connector and the interconnection electrical connector are connected, and the connector component is configured to implement signal transmission at a rate of at least 56 Gbit/s”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to configure the connector component of Huang as modified by Stokoe to transmit signals at at least 56 Gbit/s, since both are designed for high-speed transmission (Yin, translation page 2 lines 1-9 and Stokoe, paragraph 8) and at least 56 Gbit/s is a high-speed transmission. Also, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831