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. Election/Restrictions Claim 1 allowable. Claim 14, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, includes all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement of inventions II , as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/4/25 , is hereby withdrawn and claim 14 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Claims 15-20 would be rejoined and allowable if amended to overcome the objections below. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler , 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is shorter than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 2-5 in line 1, the phrase “claim 1” should read --claim 1,--. In claim 6 line 1, the phrase “ claim 5” should read --claim 5,--. In claim 7 line 1, the phrase “claim 6” should read --claim 6,--. In claims 9-11 in line 1, the phrase “claim 8” should read --claim 8,--. In claim 12 line 1, the phrase “claim 11” should read --claim 11,--. In claim 13 line 1, the phrase “claim 12” should read --claim 12,--. In claim 15 line 1, the phrase “claim 14” should read --claim 14,--. In claim 16 line 1, the phrase “claim 15” should read --claim 15,--. In claims 17, 18, and 20 in line 1, the phrase “claim 16” should read --claim 16,--. In claim 19 line 1, the phrase “claim 18” should read --claim 18,--. 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 8 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke et al. ( 6,325,644) . With regard to claim 8 , Lemke teaches, as shown in figures 6 and 33 and taught in column 10 lines 17-48: “A connector receptacle (receptacle using contacts 526 and 528) comprising: a housing (housing described in column 10 lines 17-48) forming a passage (where the contacts 526 and 528 are disposed in the housing described in column 10 lines 17-48); a plurality of contacts 526 and 528 supported by the housing, each of the plurality of contacts having a first region 532 coated with a non-solderable coating; and a plurality of solder tips 536 , each solder tip 536 attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of contacts, each solder tip 536 comprising a volume of solder 100 (column 9 lines 13-17 teaches the contacts being used with connectors similar to those shown in figure 6)”. Lemke does not teach: “ wherein the first region extends from at least a surface of the solder tip a distance away from the solder tip ” . However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of and extend the non-solderable coating region to extend from the top of the solder tip 536 to the contact engagement area 532 in order to prevent solder from extending past the solder tip. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). With regard to claim 9, Lemke teaches: “ The connector receptacle of claim 8 ”, as shown above. Lemke, as modified above and shown in figures 6 and 33 and taught in column 10 lines 17-48: “wherein for each contact in the plurality of contacts, the first region 532 extends from within the solder tip 536 a distance away from the solder tip 536” . With regard to claim 10, Lemke teaches: “ The connector receptacle of claim 8 ”, as shown above. Lemke does not specifically teach: “ wherein for each contact in the plurality of contacts, when a temperature of the solder in the solder tip exceeds its melting temperature, the solder of the solder tip moves away from the first region ” . However, Lemke, as modified above, if disposed as shown in figure 33, would cause the solder to move away from the first region when the solder exceeds the melting temperature. With regard to claim 11, Lemke teaches: “ The connector receptacle of claim 8 ”, as shown above. Lemke does not teach: “ wherein the connector receptacle is one of a plurality of connector receptacles in a frame, wherein the frame is located in an electronic device ” . However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connector receptacle with other connector receptacles located in a frame of an electronic device in order to use the connector in a device receiving multiple electronic ports. Claim s 12 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke et al. (6,325,644) in view of Zhang et al. (CN114628940A) . With regard to claim 12, Lemke teaches: “ The connector receptacle of claim 11 ”, as shown above. Lemke does not teach: “ wherein the plurality of contacts are supported by a tongue, and the tongue is supported by the housing ” . In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zhang teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught on page 2 lines 2-3 of the translation: “ wherein the plurality of contacts 32 are supported by a tongue (portion of 31 shown protruding from 21 in figure 1) , and the tongue is supported by the housing 31 ”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zhang with the invention of Lemke in order to use the features of Lemke with a different connector type (Zhang, translation page 2 lines 2-3). With regard to claim 1 3 , Lemke as modified by Zhang teaches: “ The connector receptacle of claim 12 ”, as shown above. Zhang also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught on page 2 lines 2-3 of the translation: “wherein the connector receptacle (shown in figure 1) is a Universal Serial Bus Type-C connector receptacle ” . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zhang with the invention of Lemke as modified by Zhang in order to use the features of Lemke with a different connector type (Zhang, translation page 2 lines 2-3). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1 and 14 are allowed. With regard to claim 1, Lemke teaches, as shown in figures 6 and 33 and taught in column 10 line s 17- 48 : “ A connector receptacle (receptacle using contacts 526 and 528) comprising: a housing (housing described in column 10 lines 17-48) forming a passage (where the contacts 526 and 528 are disposed in the housing described in column 10 line s 17- 48 ) ; a plurality of contacts 526 and 528 supported by the housing, each of the plurality of contacts having a first region 532 coated with a non-solderable coating; and a plurality of solder tails 536 , each solder tail having an end to be soldered to a board 204 , each solder tail attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of contacts ”. Lemke does not teach the solder tail “ having a second region coated with a non-solderable coating, wherein the second region is between the first region and the end of the solder tail, each solder tail having a solder region at least partially between the first region and the second region, the solder region to attach the solder tail to the corresponding one of the plurality of contacts ” . The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0277 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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