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
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 Oldfield (US 7,011,529), in view of Szwec (US 5,563,562), further in view of Dreezen (US 2013/0189513).
Regarding claim 1: Oldfield teaches a method of manufacturing an RF connector (see Fig. 6B) having an outer conductor 614 and an inner conductor 116, the method comprising: positioning the inner conductor 116 and the outer conductor 614 such that a volume (e.g. see gaps formed within and around 642; Fig. 6A) is formed between the inner conductor 116 and the outer conductor 614 (see Fig. 6A); dispensing a material 642 in the volume between the outer conductor 614 and the inner conductor 116 (see Figs. 6A-6B); heating the RF connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the RF connector to cool (see Col. 5, lines 44-53).
Oldfield does not explicitly teach plating the outer conductor and the inner conductor of the RF connector with a corrosion-resistant metallic material; and the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin.
Szwec teaches plating with a corrosion-resistant metallic material (Col. 4, lines 30-32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with plating the outer conductor and the inner conductor of the RF connector with a corrosion-resistant metallic material as taught by Szwec into the method of manufacturing a connector of Oldfield in order to achieve the advantage of protecting the conductors from environmental elements and wear.
Oldfield, in view of Szwec, does not exactly teach wherein the dispensed material comprises an epoxy phenol novolac based resin.
Dreezen teaches a dispensed material comprises an epoxy phenol novolac based resin (Para. 0025).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin as taught by Dreezen into the method of manufacturing a connector of Oldfield in order to achieve the advantage of its heat, moisture and chemical resistivity.
Regarding claim 2: Oldfield, in view of Szwec, further in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Oldfield further teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of positioning, prior to the step of dispensing of the material, the plated outer conductor 614 and the plated inner conductor 116 into a fixture assembly 652 (see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 3: Oldfield, in view of Szwec, further in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Oldfield further teaches wherein the fixture assembly further comprises a plurality of fixture tiers (e.g. see at 654 and 652 for multiple tiers; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 4: Oldfield, in view of Szwec, further in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Oldfield further teaches wherein the fixture assembly 652 comprises a plurality of fixture tiers (see Fig. 6A) and wherein at least one of the plurality of fixture tiers comprises polytetrafluorethylene (see Col. 2, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 5: Oldfield, in view of Szwec, further in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Oldfield further teaches wherein the RF connector is a coaxial connector (see Fig. 6B) and the inner conductor 116 is a center conducting pin (see Fig. 6B).
Claims 1, 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes (US 2019/0165536), in view of Dreezen (US 2013/0189513).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7: Dawes teaches a method of manufacturing an RF connector 100 (Fig. 1) having an outer conductor 110 and an inner conductor 105, the method comprising: plating the outer conductor 110 and the inner conductor 105 of the RF connector 100 with a corrosion-resistant metallic material (Para. 0026); positioning the inner conductor 105 and the outer conductor 110 such that a volume (at 120; Fig. 5) is formed between the inner conductor 105 and the outer conductor 110; dispensing a material (Para. 0026) in the volume between the outer conductor and the inner conductor (see Fig. 5); and further wherein the step of dispensing of the material comprises dispensing the material by an automated CNC dispensing system using a syringe or jetting technology (see Claims 6-7).
Dawes does not explicitly teach wherein the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin; heating the RF connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the RF connector to cool.
Dreezen teaches a dispensed material comprises an epoxy phenol novolac based resin (see Para. 0025); heating a connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the connector to cool (see Para. 0017).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin and heating the RF connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the RF connector to cool as taught by Dreezen into the method of manufacturing a connector of Dawes in order to achieve the advantage of its heat, moisture and chemical resistivity.
Regarding claim 8: Dawes, in view of Dreeen, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein heating the RF connector with the material comprises heating the RF connector by an oven that uses a nitrogen and partial-vacuum atmosphere (see Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9: Dawes, in view of Dreeen, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Dawes further teaches wherein the inner conductor comprises a plurality of inner pins forming a multi-pin inner conductor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 10-14: Dawes, in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Dawes does not explicitly teach wherein the material comprises a percentage of the epoxy phenol novolac based resin ranging from about 5% to about 100%.
Regarding the percentage of the epoxy phenol novolac based resin range: Dreezen discloses a percentage of the epoxy phenol novolac based resin ranging from about 3% to about 25% but does not disclose a range of 50%-100%. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a percentage of the epoxy phenol novolac based resin ranging from about 5% to about 100%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of the material comprising a percentage of the epoxy phenol novolac based resin ranging from about 5% to about 100% is to achieve desired heat resistance which is provided by including an epoxy phenol novolac based resin.
Regarding claim 15: Dawes teaches a method of manufacturing a connector 700 having an outer conductor 110 and an inner conductor 105, comprising: plating the outer conductor and the inner conductor of the connector with a corrosion- resistant metallic material (Para. 0026); positioning the inner conductor 105 and the outer conductor 110 such that a volume (at 120; Fig. 7) is formed between the inner conductor and the outer conductor (Para. 0026); injecting a material 120 into the volume formed between the outer conductor and the inner conductor (see Para. 0026), wherein defined in the outer conductor 110 is at least one retention element (e.g. see notches in outer conductor 110 and around the perimeter of material 120; see Fig. 7); substantially filling the at least one retention element with the material during injection of the material 120 (Para. 0026); allowing air bubbles to escape from the outer conductor after the material is injected into the volume and the material is substantially filled into the at least one retention element (e.g. see Fig. 7 and Para. 0026 to show a material filled within the retention elements and no indication of bubbles).
Dawes does not explicitly teach wherein the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin; heating the RF connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the RF connector to cool.
Dreezen teaches a dispensed material comprises an epoxy phenol novolac based resin (see Para. 0025); heating a connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the connector to cool (see Para. 0017).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the dispensed material comprising an epoxy phenol novolac based resin and heating the RF connector with the dispensed material; and allowing the RF connector to cool as taught by Dreezen into the method of manufacturing a connector of Dawes in order to achieve the advantage of its heat, moisture and chemical resistivity.
Regarding claim 16: Dawes, in view of Dreeen, teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Dawes further teaches wherein during the step of positioning of the inner conductor and the outer conductor includes: positioning a portion of the inner conductor within a first non-metallic fixture tier and a second non-metallic fixture tier and positioning a portion of the outer conductor within the first non-metallic fixture tier and the second non-metallic fixture tier (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 17-18: Dawes, in view of Dreeen, teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Dawes further teaches wherein the step of dispensing the material uses jetting technology or syringe technology (see Claims 7, 6, respectively).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes (US 2019/0165536), in view of Dreezen (US 2013/0189513), further in view of Lin (US 2007/0231581).
Regarding claim 19: Dawes, in view of Dreezen, teaches all the limitations of claim 15. Dawes does not explicitly teach wherein the epoxy phenol novolac based resin comprises a imidazole catalyst.
Lin teaches an epoxy comprising an imidazole catalyst (Para. 0032 and 0039).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the epoxy phenol novolac based resin comprises a imidazole catalyst as taught by Lin into the electrical connector of Dawes in order to achieve the advantage of accelerating the curing process (see Para. 0039).
Regarding claim 20: Dawes, in view of Dreezen, further in view of Lin, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and Lin further teaches wherein the imidazole catalyst is thermally cured (Para. 0039).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for relevant prior art, the following references being of particular relevance:
Taylor (US 2006/0199432) teaches a RF connector and sealing an inner conductor within an outer conductor;
Yi (US 2018/0083394) teaches a connector and sealing an inner conductor within an outer conductor and having retention needs within the outer conductor;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896