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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-10, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under USC 102(a)(1)(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sato et al. [US 20060199405 A1].
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. [US 20060199405 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Sato discloses a contactor (10) for connection and signal transfer between conductors, comprising, a core (22) part configured to extend in a longitudinal direction, contains a conductive particle (conductive particles P) and be formed to be elastically deformable (are part of an elastic anisotropically conductive film 20, see [0172]); an insulation part (23) configured to surround a transverse surface of the core part (22) and be formed to be elastically deformable (composed of polymeric elastic substance, see [0190]); and a shield part (26) configured to surround a transverse surface of the insulation part (23) to be spaced apart from the core part (22), contains a conductive particle (P) and be formed to be elastically deformable (are part of an elastic anisotropically conductive film 20, see [0165]), and wherein the core part (22) and the shield part (26) have higher hardness and Young's modulus than the insulation part (23) (Sato provides different preferred volume ranges for the conductive particles in the core, the shield and the insulation part; the core part 22 may contain 10-60%, the shield part 26 may contain 5-60%, and the insulation part does not contain conductive particles P at all or scarcely contains them; see [0164], [0177] and [0178]), and the core part (22) and the shield part (26) are different from each other in at least one of physical properties including hardness and Young's modulus (the core part and shield part can contain different concentrations of particles as disclosed above, such adjustment would inherently result in different physical properties such as hardness or Young’s modulus between the core and the shield, as taught by Sato.
Regarding Claim 2, Sato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sato further discloses the core part (22), the insulation part (23), and the shield part (26) are hardened by a phase change and integrally formed with each other (are formed part of elastic anistropically conductive film 20, see [0235]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sato further discloses the core part (22), the insulation part (23), and the shield part (26) are concentrically cylindrical (see, Fig 1-2, [0140]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sato further discloses each of the core part (22) and the shield part (26) protrudes in the longitudinal direction compared to the insulation part (23).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sato further discloses the conductive particles (P) contained in the core part (22) and the shield part (26) are aligned in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 2).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. [US 20060199405 A1] in view of Simmons et al. [US 8947319 B2] .
Regarding Claim 5, Sato discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sato further discloses the core part (22) protrudes in the longitudinal direction compared to the insulation part (23); and different thickness/projected heights for the core, shield and insulation part, see [0336]. Sato does not explicitly disclose the insulation part protrudes in the longitudinal direction compared to the shield part.
However, Simmons discloses a contactor (see Fig 7C) wherein the insulation part (172) protrudes in the longitudinal direction compared to the shield part (173), and the core part (171) protrudes in the longitudinal direction compared to the insulation part (172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato as suggested by Simmons to provide the insulation part to protrude in the longitudinal direction compared to the shield part as it is routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art according to the arrangement site of the contactor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different sequential tiered profiles of the core, shield, and insulation part as taught by Sato and Simmons ensures the signal path reaches its destination within a target assembly with proper alignment.
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 THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights