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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/387647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, except for the terminology of such as a receiving chamber of claim 1 of the instant application is equivalent to a mating slot the US patent. they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claim limitation of claim 1, of the instant application broader than and equivalent to the claims 1 and 4 of US co-pending application.
The claimed limitation of claim 2 of the instant application is equivalent to claims 3 and 4 of US co-pending application.
Claim 3 of the instant application is equivalent claim 2 of US co-pending application.
Claim 4 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 2 of the US co-pending application.
Claim 7 of the instant application is equivalent claim 7 of US co-pending application.
Claim 8 of the instant application is equivalent to claim 2 of the US co-pending application.
Claims 9-17 of the instant application is equivalent claims 11-18 of US co-pending application.
Claim limitations of claims 17-20 of the instant application are equivalent to claims the US co-pending application, as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/229222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, except for the terminology of such as a receiving chamber of claim 1 of the instant application is equivalent to a mating slot the US patent. they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claim limitations of claim 1, of the instant application is broader than and equivalent to the claims 1, 3 4 and 19 of US co-pending application.
Claims 2-6 of the instant application are equivalent claims 2-6 of US co-pending application.
Claims 7-16 of the instant application are equivalent claims 9-16 of US co-pending application.
Claim limitation of claims 17-20 are similar to claims 1-16 of the instant application, which are equivalent to claims 1-20 of the US copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/229339 (which is recently allowed). Although the claims at issue are not identical, except for the terminology of such as a receiving chamber of claim 1 of the instant application is equivalent to a mating slot the US patent. they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claimed limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application are equivalent to the allowed claimed of the US application 18/229,339.
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 1-4, 7-915, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szczesny (US 20150029667).
Regarding claim 1, Szczesny disclose, a connector assembly 10, comprising: an electrical connector 14 comprising an insulating body (see fig. 3) (of) 14 and a plurality of conductive terminals 34a, the plurality of conductive terminals 34a being configured to be mounted to a circuit board]) 26 (not shown, see paragraph [0016], [0017]); a metal shielding cage 36 shielding a periphery of the electrical connector, the metal shielding cage 36 comprising a receiving chamber 44 configured to receive a mating connector 12 along a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the circuit board 26; and a heat dissipation element 62 comprising a first heat sink 66 mounted on one side of the metal shielding cage, the first heat sink 66 comprising a plurality of first heat dissipation fins 66b and a plurality of first heat dissipation channels of which each is located between two adjacent first heat dissipation fins (gap between two fins 66b).
Regarding claim 2, Szczesny disclose, the metal shielding cage comprises a first end wall, a first side wall, a second side wall opposite to the first side wall, and a second end wall opposite to the first end wall; and wherein the receiving chamber is jointly enclosed by the first end wall, the first side wall, the second side wall and the second end wall.
Regarding claim 3, Szczesny disclose, the first end wall defines a first opening communicating with the receiving chamber; the first heat sink comprises a first body portion fixed to the first end wall, the plurality of first heat dissipation fins protrude sidewardly from the first body portion; the first body portion at least partially extends into the first opening, and is exposed in the receiving chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Szczesny discloses, the second end wall defines a second opening communicating with the receiving chamber; the second heat sink comprises a second body portion fixed to the second end wall, the plurality of second heat dissipation fins protrude sidewardly from the second body portion; the second body portion at least partially extends into the second opening, and is exposed in the receiving chamber (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Szczesny discloses, the heat dissipation element comprises a second heat sink mounted on another side of the metal shielding cage; the second heat sink comprises a plurality of second heat dissipation fins and a plurality of second heat dissipation channels of which each is located between two adjacent second heat dissipation fins; and wherein an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction, (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Szczesny discloses, the heat dissipation element comprises a second heat sink mounted on another side of the metal shielding cage; the second heat sink comprises a plurality of second heat dissipation fins and a plurality of second heat dissipation channels of which each is located between two adjacent second heat dissipation fins; and wherein an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is parallel to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is parallel to the first direction (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Szczesny discloses, the metal shielding cage comprises an inner metal shell (formed by) 70, 72,74,76 fixed to the first side wall and the second side wall (through upper wall 72,74,76); the inner metal shell divides the receiving chamber 44 into a first receiving chamber 44a, 44b,and a second receiving chamber 44c, 44d located on two sides of the inner metal shell, respectively; the mating connector comprises a first mating connector configured to be received in the first receiving chamber and a second mating connector configured to be received in the second receiving chamber.
Regarding claim 15, Szczesny discloses, a first terminal module 34; wherein the first terminal module 34a, 34b comprises a first insulating block 34 (see fig. 3), a plurality of first conductive terminals (upper row of) 34a fixed to the first insulating block 34, and a plurality of second conductive terminals (lower row of) 34a fixed to the first insulating block 34; the plurality of conductive terminals (within) 34a comprise the plurality of first conductive terminals (upper row within) 34a and the plurality of second conductive terminals (lower row within) 34a; each first conductive terminal comprises a first fixing portion (rear portion of terminal which are fixed within the receptacle 34a), a first elastic contact arm (front portion of terminal, at which the edge of a circuit board 28 is connecting) extending from one end of the first
PNG
media_image1.png
573
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fixing portion, and a first tail portion (which is electrically connect to the host circuit board (not shown), see paragraph [0019] extending from another end of the first fixing portion; the first fixing portion is fixed to the first insulating block; the first tail portion extends beyond the first insulating block; each second conductive terminal comprises a second fixing portion, a second elastic contact arm extending from one end of the second fixing portion, and a second tail portion extending from another end of the second fixing portion; the second fixing portion is fixed to the first insulating block; the second tail portion extends beyond the first insulating block; and the first tail portion and the second tail portion are configured to be mounted on the circuit board.
Regarding claim 17, Szczesny discloses, a connector assembly 10, comprising: an electrical connector 14 comprising an insulating body of (see fig. 3) 14 and a plurality of conductive terminals (within receptacle) 34a, the plurality of conductive terminals being configured to be mounted to a circuit board 26 (not shown, see paragraph [0016], [0017]; a metal shielding cage 36 shielding a periphery of the electrical connector; the metal shielding cage 36 comprising a first end wall, a first side wall, a second side wall opposite to the first side wall, a second end wall opposite to said first end wall, and a receiving chamber 44 jointly enclosed by the first end wall, the first side wall, the second side wall and the second end wall; the receiving chamber comprising a first receiving chamber 44 configured to receive a first mating connector 12 along a first direction, and a second receiving chamber configured to receive a second mating connector 12 along the first direction (see figs. 2 and 3); the first end wall defining a first opening communicating with the first receiving chamber; the second end wall defining a second opening communicating with the second receiving chamber; the first direction being perpendicular to the circuit board 26; and a heat dissipation element 62 comprising a first heat sink 66 and a second heat sink 68 (see fig. 1); the first heat sink comprising a first body portion fixed to the first end wall and at least partially protruding inwardly into the first opening, a plurality of first heat dissipation fins 66b protruding sidewardly from the first body portion, and a plurality of first heat dissipation channels (gap between two adjacent fins) of which each is located between two adjacent first heat dissipation fins 66b; the second heat sink comprising a second body portion fixed to the second end wall and at least partially protruding inwardly into the second opening, a plurality of second heat dissipation fins 68b protruding sidewardly from the second body portion, and a plurality of second heat dissipation channels (between two adjacent fin 68b) of which each is located between two adjacent second heat dissipation fins; the first body portion protruding inwardly into the first opening is configured to abut against the first mating connector (upon plugging mating connector) 12; the second body portion protruding inwardly into the second opening is configured to abut against the second mating connector (upon plugging mating connector) 12.
Regarding claim 19, Szczesny discloses, a first terminal an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is parallel to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is parallel to the first direction.
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 5, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczesny.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Szczesny discloses all the claimed limitations except for the metal shielding cage has a first height H1 along the first direction; the metal shielding cage has a first length L1 along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, where H1>L1, and the metal shielding cage has a first width W1 along a third direction which is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, where H1>W1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimensions of height, length and width are such that, where H1>L1, and H1>W1, and since 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).
Regarding claim 18, Szczesny discloses all the claimed limitations except for an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction, since, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have for an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction, since applicant has not disclose that od having an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction; and an extending direction of each second heat dissipation channel is perpendicular to the first direction solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (this feature is a critical, patentably distinguishing feature)and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with of having an extending direction of each first heat dissipation channel is parallel to the first direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (EST).
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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831