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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one engaging portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 2022/0190516).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips et al. disclose a wire connector (102) for be mated with a board connector (104), comprising:
an insulating body (120) having an end surface (at 140) and two groove (192);
at least one first connecting plate protruding outward from the end surface of the insulating body;
at least one second connecting plate protruding outward from the end surface of the insulating body; and
two side plate structures (132, 132) being respectively disposed on two opposite sides of the end surface of the insulating body and perpendicular to the end surface.
Phillips et al. substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the shape of the side plate structure is U-shaped or L-shaped.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the Phillips’s side plate structure to the U-shaped or L-shaped, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Phillips et al. disclose two anti-tilt insertion structures extend from the two opposite sides of the end surface of the insulating body, respectively; and wherein the two side plate structures are disposed on one side or inside of the two anti-tilt insertion structures, respectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Phillips et al. disclose a part of each of the two side plate structures are exposed on the inside of one of the two anti-tilt insertion structures; wherein, when the wire connector is connected to a board connector, the two side plate structures are configured to be in contact with a metal shell of the board connector (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips et al. disclose an exposed surface of the side plate structure is flush with a surface of the anti-tilt insertion structure (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Phillips et al. disclose each of the two opposite sides of the insulating body has an accommodating groove (154), each of the two side plate structures is detachably disposed in the accommodating groove, and a part of each of the two side plate structures is located in a corresponding one of the two anti-tilt insertion structures.
Regarding claim 6, Phillips et al. disclose an opening of the accommodating groove is located at a front end or a rear end of the insulating body, and each of the two side plate structures is configured to be placed into the accommodating groove from the front end or the rear end of the insulating body.
PNG
media_image3.png
324
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Phillips et al. disclose comprising a cover body (126) that is detachably disposed on the rear end of the insulating body.
Regarding claim 8, Phillips et al. disclose each of the two side plate structures is a metal structure.
Regarding claim 9, Phillips et al. disclose the two side plate structures are perpendicular to the at least one first connecting plate and the at least one second connecting plate.
Regarding claim 10, Phillips et al. disclose the structural body is a plate-like structure, and wherein each of the two opposite sides of the insulating body has an accommodating groove (154), and the at least one engaging portion (190) of each of the two side plate structures is disposed in the accommodating groove (192) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Phillips et al. disclose each of the two opposite sides of the insulating body has an accommodating groove (154), and each of the two side plate structures is partially inserted into the accommodating groove.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 2022/0190516) in view of Ko (US 7,189,121).
Phillips et al. disclose the at least one first connecting plate has a plurality of first fingers and the at least one second connecting plate has a plurality of second fingers, wherein a quantity of the first fingers is different from a quantity of the second fingers.
Phillips et al. substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the fingers is a gold finger and wherein a width of at least one of the first gold fingers is different from a width of at least one of the second gold fingers.
Ko teaches gold fingers (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide gold fingers into Phillips’s connector, as taught by Ko for minimizing resistance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the width of at least one of the first gold fingers is different from the width of at least one of the second gold fingers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 4/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 102(a1) 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 Phillips et al. under 35 USC 103(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRUC T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2011. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday (7-4).
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, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TRUC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights