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 .
Specification
The abstract remains objected to. 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. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The present disclosure describes,” etc.
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 1-2, 4-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA in Figs. 1A-2D, discussed in the Background of the invention) in view of Warwick et al. (US 9,685,717).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses an assembly in a base station antenna arrangement, comprising: a radio having a cover (322) with a hole and a printed circuit board (PCB) (310) positioned below the cover, wherein the PCB has first and second contact pads; a pogo-pin connector (200) having a spring-loaded inner contact and an outer contact (345) that circumferentially surrounds the inner contact, wherein the inner contact extends through the hole in the cover and engages the first contact pad of the PCB; and a gasket (350), the gasket including a lower ring (354) and an upper ring (352), wherein the lower ring is positioned in the hole in the cover and engages the second contact pad of the PCB and the upper ring engages the outer contact to establish an electrical connection between the outer contact and the second contact pad, the gasket further including an integrally-formed skirt (360, see further discussion on Response to Arguments) that extends radially outwardly from and circumferentially surrounds the upper ring, the skirt engaging the cover of the radio.
Figures 1A-2D disclose substantially the claimed invention but is unclear about the material being a conductive elastomer material. Warwick teaches a gasket (13) for establishing an electrical connection between an outer contact (6) and a pad on a PCB. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a conductive elastomer, as taught by Warwick, in order to improve signal integrity.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA discloses the skirt including a transition region (bottom of 360 contacting 322) that extends radially outwardly from the upper ring and a lip (outer end corner of 360) that extends radially outwardly from the transition region, and wherein the lip engages the upper surface of the cover.
Regarding claim 4, AAPA discloses the outer contact includes a shoulder, and wherein the transition region abuts the shoulder (Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 5, AAPA discloses the upper ring having a first diameter that is greater than a second diameter of the lower ring (Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA discloses the lower ring having a lower end that deflects radially outwardly to engage the second contact pad of the PCB (intended use, Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA discloses the pogo-pin connector connecting a filter with the PCB of the radio (intended use, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA discloses the pogo-pin connector further comprising a dielectric member between the inner contact and the other contact (not labeled, Figs. 2C and 2D).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Warwick, and further in view of Courtaigne (US 5,775,830).
Regarding claim 3, Courtaigne discloses a skirt (5) including a lip (15) that extends from the transition section (14) at an oblique angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use an oblique lip, as taught by Courtaigne, in order to provide an efficient seal while minimizing material and interference.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Warwick, and further in view of Schultz (US 3,535,676).
Regarding claim 6, Schultz teaches the use of a conductive elastomer (22) comprising rubber.
Regarding claim 7, Schultz teaches the conductive elastomer (22) comprising a conductive metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the conductive elastomer comprising rubber and a conductive material, as taught by Schultz, in order to provide an efficient and reliable conductive elastomer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the skirt being integrally formed on the gasket) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, please note that the claim only requires that the gasket “includes an integrally formed skirt”. The skirt of AAPA is integrally formed with itself, i.e. it’s an integral piece.
Nonetheless, please note that it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Additionally, please note that the method of forming a device (i.e. formed) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. It is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation.
In the event that Applicant intended to claim that the skirt and the gasket are monolithic with each other, please note that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights