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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
The drawings fail to comply with the requirements set for under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l), (m), and (n). The drawings are not suitable for clear reproduction due to the noncompliance with 1.84(l) and (m).
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2, 21.
In FIG 3, the identifiers “4” and “S” are depicted upside down.
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: characters “Z” and “w” of FIG 1; character “S” of FIG 3; character “Z1” of FIG 4.
The drawings fail to show “a protective film” as recited by claim 3 and its dependents.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. While Examiner has attempted to evaluate the claims as filed, it should be understood that any rejection or indication of allowable subject matter is based on Examiner’s best understanding of the disclosure as filed.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “a second circuit board assembled to the first line circuit board through the connecting piece, the connecting piece slides through the first line circuit board and the second circuit board, and the first line circuit board and the second circuit board are fixed to each other” (emphasis by Examiner).
As may be seen, Applicant first recites the first and second boards being connected to each other “through” the connecting piece; yet, Applicant also claims that the connecting piece “slides through” each of the boards. Applicant then again claims that the boards are “fixed to each other.” Overall, the quoted portion above reflects an issue of translation.
It is unclear to what extent the connecting piece must slide “through” the boards. It seems evident that it does not slide all the way through because if it did so, the boards would not be connected. Based on FIGS 1 and 2, it would seem that the connecting piece does not “slide through” the first board, but is instead fixedly attached to the first board by inserting the connecting piece into an aperture located on the first board.
Thus, the intended scope of the claim is indefinite because the plain language of Applicant’s claim is not commensurate with that which is actually disclosed by the application as filed. Appropriate clarification is required.
In addition to the above, Applicant’s redundant recitation of “the first line circuit board and the second circuit board are fixed to each other” raises the question of how “a second circuit board” might be “assembled to” to the first board without being “fixed to” the first board. The phrase “assembled to the first line circuit board,” in this context, arguably means the exact same thing as “fixedly attached to the first line circuit board….” Thus, it is unclear whether Applicant’s translation has erred by reciting unnecessary and redundant limitations, or whether Applicant is alleging a manner of assembling the boards to each other without simultaneously fixing them to each other. Appropriate clarification is required.
Finally, Applicant recites “when the second circuit board is installed on the first line circuit board….” This limitation needlessly fails to utilize established phrases, making it unclear whether there is an omitted step of installation, or whether Applicant’s translation has once again erred by reciting the same limitation (i.e., affixing one board to the other) in three different manners for no apparent reason. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, fail to cure the deficiencies identified above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “the second circuit board comprises a number of conductive lines and laminates on both sides of a protective film, close to a first side of the protective film corresponding to an avoidance hole, and a conductive circuit exposed in the avoidance hole forms the contact part” (emphasis by Examiner). It is unclear how the bolded limitation is meant to be parsed in context of the remaining limitations.
Applicant first recites lines and laminates on both sides of a protective film, i.e., a first and second side. The term “both” implies that there are only two sides, as Applicant does not recite “a top and a bottom side” which would imply “a left and a right side” or similar options. Applicant then appears to claim these lines and laminates being close to a first side of the protective film corresponding to an avoidance hole. Thus, it is unclear how something provided on both sides of the film can be closer to one side than the other.
Examiner has attempted to rely on the disclosure as filed to understand the subject matter recited in claim 3, but is unable to decipher any clear meaning from the Specification or Drawings. None of the references to “a protective film” in the Specification are accompanied by any numeric indicator that would show the film in the Drawings. As disclosed by instant paragraph 40, it would appear that “a protective film” is nothing more than a layer of film deposited on the surface of the circuit board(s). This, however, would present an issue of clarity with respect to lines and traces being on “both sides of a protective film” as recited in claim 3. Even if “sides” were interpreted to be a “left” and “right” side of the circuit board, it would still be unclear how the lines and laminates would be closer to one side or the other when arranged as shown by instant FIG 2.
Thus, it is wholly unclear from the claims and disclosure as filed what subject matter is considered to be the inventive subject matter within claim 3 as preliminarily amended. Claims 4-12, 14, and 15 depend from claim 3, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore subject to the same rejection.
Appropriate corrections are required. As Examiner is unable to reasonably ascertain Applicant’s intended scope for claim 3, and thus claims 4-12, 14, and 15, the subject matter of claims 3-12, 14, and 15 cannot be evaluated in view of the prior art at this time. THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER. Examiner will reconsider the subject matter of claims 3-12, 14, and 15 upon receipt of amendments and/or arguments that appropriately and fully address the issues identified above.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant recites “a surface of the conductive part…is welded for conducting the conductive part” (emphasis by Examiner). Applicant does not clearly recite or otherwise convey what the surface is welded to; an element cannot be welded to nothing, thus claim 4 is also indefinite for this reason. Claims 5-12 depend from claim 4, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore subject to the same rejection. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “the contact part” in line 4 of the claim as preliminarily amended. It is unclear which contact part is being referenced, as Applicant recites “a contact part” in claim 1 and subsequently recites “a contact part” in claim 4. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant recites “the contact part” at the end of the claim as preliminarily amended. It is unclear which contact part is being referenced, as Applicant recites “a contact part” in claim 1 and subsequently recites “a contact part” in claim 4. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant recites “the contact part” in line 3 of the claim as preliminarily amended. It is unclear which contact part is being referenced, as Applicant recites “a contact part” in claim 1 and subsequently recites “a contact part” in claim 4. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “the contact part” in line 4 of the claim as preliminarily amended. It is unclear which contact part is being referenced, as Applicant recites “a contact part” in claim 1 and subsequently recites “a contact part” in claim 4. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites “a quantity of connecting parts is at least two groups” (emphasis by Examiner). First, it is unclear what constitutes “connecting parts” as recited; no such parts are recited by claim 1. While there are number of parts recited by claim 1, it is not clear whether “connecting parts” of claim 13 include any of the parts of claim 1, or whether they constitute a wholly separate set of parts.
In addition to the above, Applicant’s recitation of “a quantity” being “at least two groups” presents no coherent or cognizable quantity. Two “groups” could be any number of parts ranging from two parts (i.e., the first and second groups each comprise one connecting part) or an indeterminate number of parts (i.e., “groups” are not individuals and thus each group must have at least two constituent member parts).
As it is unclear what “connecting parts” are being referenced and, moreover, how many of said “connecting parts” Applicant is trying to claim, Examiner is wholly unable to determine an appropriate scope for the subject matter of claim 13. As a scope for claim 13 cannot be determined, the subject matter of claim 13 cannot be evaluated in view of the prior art at this time. THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER. Examiner will reconsider the subject matter of claim 13 upon receipt of amendments and/or arguments that appropriately and fully address the issues identified above.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant recites “one side of the second circuit board deviating from the first line circuit board” in lines 2-3 of the claim as preliminarily amended. It is wholly unclear how the second board, which is a wholly separate element from the first board, would “deviate from” the first board. As may be seen from FIG 1, the second board (presumably identified by character “Z”) includes an “insulation protection board” 9, but neither the second board nor the insulation protection board “deviate from” the first board in any cognizable manner.
Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
As Applicant’s use of the term “deviate” does not comport with the generally understood meaning of the term and, as Applicant does not provide any special definition for the term, Examiner is wholly unable to determine an appropriate scope for the subject matter of claims 16-18. As a scope for claims 16-18 cannot be determined, the subject matter of claims 16-18 cannot be evaluated in view of the prior art at this time. THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER. Examiner will reconsider the subject matter of claims 16-18 upon receipt of amendments and/or arguments that appropriately and fully address the issues identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,924,875 (“Tighe”), as best understood by Examiner in view of the §112 rejections discussed above.
Regarding claim 1, Tighe discloses:
A connector (see FIGS 1, 2), comprising:
a connecting piece (bolts 32; see FIG 11);
a first line circuit board (circuit board 1 and flexible cable 5, collectively); and
a second circuit board (circuit board 3 and flexible cable 7, collectively) assembled to the first line circuit board through the connecting piece (as shown in FIG 11; see also col. 8, ll. 17-29),
[wherein] the connecting piece slides through the first line circuit board and the second circuit board, and the first line circuit board and the second circuit board are fixed to each other (as shown by FIG 11, where bolt 32 passes through unlabeled holes in each of circuit boards 1 and 3),
wherein the first line circuit board is provided with a conductive part (e.g., traces 11, as shown in FIGS 1 and 4), the second circuit board is provided with a contact part (e.g., traces 13, as shown in FIG 1), and when the second circuit board is installed on the first line circuit board, the conductive part and the contact part are electrically connected (FIGS 3, 11; when connected as shown in FIG 11, traces 11 and 13 are connected to each other via interposer 9).
Regarding claim 2, Tighe discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first line circuit board being a hard circuit board (inherent; Tighe does not disclose the printed circuit boards 1 and 3 as being hard or soft, but those of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the circuit boards are “hard” because Tighe specifically refers to cables 5 and 7 as “flexible cables,” implying a softness not present in the printed circuit board) and is provided with a first mounting hole corresponding to the connecting piece (see FIG 11; unlabeled hole in circuit board 1 through which bolt 32 passes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those documents cited, but not relied upon in the discussions above, generally pertain to various aspects of the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights