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 Objections
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: .
Claim 12 line 8 recites: “the mating snap” should be --the convex mating snap--
Claim 15 line 2 recites: “the mating snap” should be --the convex mating snap--
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1,6-7,10-11, and 20 are as best understood and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 11196213).
As per claim 1: Shen et al. discloses a connector 1 (as shown in fig. 2), comprising: a housing 12; a terminal (contacting pad 101) arranged in the housing 12 (as shown in figs. 2-4); and the elastic cantilever 131 has a pair of sides (see fig. 4, wherein the first latch plate 1311 comprises two opposing interfering parts 13113. When the latch 131 is disposed in the latch accommodating groove 121, the two interfering parts 13113 of the first latch plate 1311 interfere with two opposing sidewalls of the latch accommodating groove 121 to secure the first latch plate 1311 in the latch accommodating groove 121) opposite to each other in a width direction of the housing 12, a snap 13121 protruding along the width direction is formed on one of the sides of the elastic cantilever 131 (as shown in fig. 5), the snap 13121 engages a mating snap 21 formed on a mating housing (not label, see fig. 5) of a mating connector 2 to lock the connector 1 and the mating connector 2 together. However, Shen et al. does not explicitly disclose there is one of a pair of elastic cantilevers disposed on an outside of a top wall of the housing and extending along a length direction of the housing.
On the other hand, Shen et al. mentioned wherein an elastic cantilever 131 on an outside of a top wall 12b of the housing 12 and extending along a length direction of the housing 12 (as shown in fig. 3). However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having a pair of elastic cantilevers instead of having an elastic cantilever can only deal with duplication of part, because such modification still would not change the function of the cantilever or the connector after all, but to further enhance a secure, stable and reliable fasten between elements, as well as conveniently remove/extract or rejoin the structure as desire. Since, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector of Shen et al. by having one of a pair of elastic cantilevers disposed on an outside of a top wall of the housing and extending along a length direction of the housing as taught by the instant invention to further enhance a secure, stable and reliable fasten between elements, as well as conveniently remove/extract or rejoin the structure as desire.
As per claims 6-7, and 20: Shen et al. discloses the connector 1, wherein a convex rib 14 extending along the length direction is formed on an outer surface of the top wall 12b of the housing 12 (see fig. 1), the convex rib 14 mates with a guide groove on the mating housing to guide the housing to mate into the mating housing (wherein connector 1 further comprises two positioning bumps 14 oppositely disposed on the plugging surface 12a, guiding the cable end connector 1 to connect with the board end connector 2 allowing the cable end connector 1 to be accurately plugged into the board end connector 2. The two positioning bumps 14 are disposed on an inner side edge of the plugging surface 12a); and wherein a terminal installation hole (not label, see figs. 1, 3) extending along the length direction is formed in the housing 12, the terminal 101 is inserted in the terminal installation hole (see fig. 1, 3); and the connector 1 is mating.
As per claim 10: Shen et al. discloses the connector 1. However, Shen et al. does not disclose wherein the terminal is female type terminal and the connector is a female type connector; and wherein the mating terminal is a male terminal, and the mating connector is a male connector.
On the other hand, She et al. mentioned the connector is the male type connector with the male type terminal and the mating connector is female connector in order to connect, insert and engage between the connectors. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having the terminal is female type terminal and the connector is a female type connector; or wherein the mating terminal is a male terminal, and the mating connector is a male connector instead of male connector and male terminal can only deal with manufacture desire but still would not change the function of the connectors after all. Since, examiner takes official notice of the equivalence of the instant invention versus the prior art of record for the use in art of connector and the selection of any of these know equivalents as mentioned above would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector of Shen et al. by having the terminal is female type terminal and the connector is a female type connector or wherein the mating terminal is a male terminal, and the mating connector is a male connector as taught by the instant invention instead of the prior art of record wherein mentioned the connector is the male type connector with the male type terminal and the mating connector is female connector in order to connect, insert and engage between the connectors and to further transmitting signal as supposed.
As per claim 11: Shen et al. discloses the connector 1, the cantilever 131 and the housing 12. However, Shen et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic cantilever is integrally formed with the housing so that the elastic cantilever is a part of the housing.
On the other hand, Shen et al. mentioned the cantilever 131 is attached to the housing 12. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that the elastic cantilever is integrally formed with the housing so that the elastic cantilever is a part of the housing can only deal with to make integral because such modification still would not change the function of the connector but to further enhance a stable, reliable structure and as design desire from the manufacture. Since, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in tow pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector of Shen et al. by having the elastic cantilever is integrally formed with the housing so that the elastic cantilever is a part of the housing as taught by the instant invention to further enhance a stable, reliable structure and as design desire from the manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: with regards to claim 21, Shen et al. (US 11196213) is the closest prior art of record regards to the instant invention of claim 21. However, Shen et al. does not teach: “wherein the front end of the elastic cantilever is fixed to the top wall of the housing, the snap is separable from the mating snap by pressing the rear end of the elastic cantilever along the width direction”. The above noted structure in combination with other recitations within the claims is not shown by a single prior art document and the examiner knows of no reasonable rational to combine the prior art of record such that the claimed invention would have been obvious at prior to the filing of this application. Therefore, claim 21 is allowable.
with regards to claim 22, Shen et al. (US 11196213) is the closest prior art of record regards to the instant invention of claim 22. However, Shen et al. does not teach: “wherein a rear end of the elastic cantilever extends beyond a rear end of the housing, the elastic cantilever has a pair of sides opposite to each other in a width direction of the housing”. The above noted structure in combination with other recitations within the claims is not shown by a single prior art document and the examiner knows of no reasonable rational to combine the prior art of record such that the claimed invention would have been obvious at prior to the filing of this application. Therefore, claim 22 is allowable.
with regards to claim 23, Shen et al. (US 11196213) is the closest prior art of record regards to the instant invention of claim 23. However, Shen et al. does not teach: “wherein a terminal lock inserted in a bottom slot formed on a bottom wall of the housing and resting against a locking portion of the terminal to lock the terminal in the housing”. The above noted structure in combination with other recitations within the claims is not shown by a single prior art document and the examiner knows of no reasonable rational to combine the prior art of record such that the claimed invention would have been obvious at prior to the filing of this application. Therefore, claim 23 is allowable.
with regards to claim 24, Shen et al. (US 11196213) is the closest prior art of record regards to the instant invention of claim 24. However, Shen et al. does not teach: “wherein a mounting member having a body portion fixed to a side wall of the mating housing and a welding portion weldable to a circuit board”. The above noted structure in combination with other recitations within the claims is not shown by a single prior art document and the examiner knows of no reasonable rational to combine the prior art of record such that the claimed invention would have been obvious at prior to the filing of this application. Therefore, claim 24 is allowable.
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 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s amendment respect to claim 1 with partial of allowable claim 5 incorporated into claim 5. Examiner respectfully disagreed. Since, the allowable of dependent claim 5 was as a whole to make up for the allowable of claim 5 but not just a portion or one limitation from claim 5 would be allowable which is incorporated into claim 1 as amended by the Application. Therefore, Examiner has presented a new ground of rejection that applied to a new amended independent claim 1, and Examiner believes the rejection is valid and proper.
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 THANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0288. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-6:30pm.
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.
/T.H.N/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights