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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima [US 2020/0136285] in view of Yamada [US 2020/0391413].
Regarding claim 1, Kitajima discloses a connector comprising: a terminal fitting (fig. 1; 60); and a resin housing (fig. 1; 10) to which the terminal fitting (60) is attached, wherein the housing (10) has a tubular shape (Par [0018]; rectangular tube) that is open forward (Par [0018]; forwardly open), and includes a bottom wall (fig. 3; bottom wall of 13) to be placed on a circuit substrate (fig. 2; 90), a ceiling wall (fig. 3; top wall of 13) opposing the bottom wall (bottom wall of 13), and a back wall (fig. 2; 18) linking a rear end portion (rear of bottom wall) of the bottom wall (bottom wall of 13) to a rear end portion (rear of top wall) of the ceiling wall (top wall of 13s) in an up-down direction (fig. 1; vertical extending direction of 16), the terminal fitting (60) is shaped so as to pass through the back wall (18) in a front-rear direction (fig. 1; 11 to 18 direction), and includes a terminal connection portion (fig. 3; portion of 61 inside of 11) disposed inside the housing (10), and a substrate connection portion (fig. 1; 62) disposed outside the housing (10), and a gate mark (fig. 4; 17) is formed in the side wall (fig. 4; 16) at the rear end portion (rear end of 16) of the side wall (16), the gate mark (17) corresponding to an injection port for injecting a molding resin (see fig. Par [0020] Ln 8-9 and fig. 5).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kitajima does not disclose the gate mark being formed in at least one of an uppermost ceiling surface at the rear end portion of the ceiling wall and a lowermost bottom surface at the rear end portion of the bottom wall [claim 1]; the gate mark is formed in an intermediate portion in a left-right direction of at least one of the ceiling surface and the bottom surface [claim 2].
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yamada teaches the gate mark (fig. 2; 51) being formed in at least one of an uppermost ceiling surface (fig. 2; a top surface of 5) at the rear end portion (edge of the top surface of 5) of the ceiling wall (fig. 2; top wall that 51 is a part of); the pair of gate marks (51) is formed in an intermediate portion (middle of top surface of 5) in a left-right direction of at least one of the ceiling surface (a top surface of 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gate mark being formed in at least one of a ceiling surface at the rear end portion of the ceiling wall and a bottom surface at the rear end portion of the bottom wall and the gate mark being formed in an intermediate portion in a left-right direction of at least one of the ceiling surface and the bottom surface as suggested by Yamada since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, and also for the benefit of improving the flow of molten resin to ensure all areas of a housing have an uniform density.
Regarding claim 3, Kitajima modified by Yamada has been discussed above. Kitajima discloses wherein the housing (10) further includes a continuous resin portion (fig. 5; wall 16, see upward arrow) made of a resin and extending in a continuous manner in the up-down direction (vertical extending direction) from the ceiling surface (surface of top wall) to the bottom surface (surface of bottom wall) via the gate mark (17).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima [US 2020/0136285] and Yamada [US 2020/0391413] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu [US 2008/0146094].
Kitajima and Yamada disclose all of the claim limitations except the ceiling wall has a larger volume than the bottom wall and is overall thicker than the bottom wall in the up-down direction.
However, Shimizu teaches the ceiling wall (fig. 3; wall of 20 that is between 38 and 10) has a larger volume than the bottom wall (fig. 3; wall of 20 that is below 10) and is overall thicker (top is thicker than bottom wall) than the bottom wall in the up-down direction (fig. 1; vertical direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ceiling wall has a larger volume than the bottom wall and is overall thicker than the bottom wall in the up-down direction as suggested by Shimizu for the benefit of improving the structural integrity of a connector housing that allows for better locking of a mating connector.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima [US 2020/0136285] and Yamada [US 2020/0391413] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata et al. [US 8,888,501].
Kitajima and Yamada disclose all of the claim limitations except one gate mark is formed in one of the ceiling surface and the bottom surface.
However, Hirata teaches one gate mark (fig. 3; 40) is formed in the ceiling surface (top surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate one gate mark is formed in one of the ceiling surface and the bottom surface as suggested by Hirata for the benefit of improving the insert molding process of a connector housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest wherein the ceiling wall includes a plurality of lock portions for holding, in a mated state, a partner housing disposed inside the housing, the plurality of lock portions are aligned in a left-right direction and protrude from a front end portion of the ceiling wall combined with the remaining limitations of the base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Attorney states, “however, as clearly shown in FIG. 4 of Yamada reproduced below, resin of outer resin portion (5) exists above gate mark (51) - elements (11), (2C), and the upper portion of outer resin portion (5) are all positioned above gate mark (51). Accordingly, gate mark (51) is not located at the "uppermost" surface of outer resin portion (5), and the Examiner's mapping is inconsistent with Yamada's own disclosure. Yamada's FIG. 4 itself directly contradicts the Examiner's assertion that gate mark (51) corresponds to the ceiling surface of the ceiling wall. The Examiner's mapping is therefore unsupported by, and indeed inconsistent with, Yamada's own disclosure.”
Attorney also stated, “Yamada's outer resin portion (5) - the part from which gate mark (51) derives - is not a "ceiling wall opposing the bottom wall" or a "back wall linking a rear end portion of the bottom wall to a rear end portion of the ceiling wall." It is a covering layer molded over pre-existing core resin portions. The structural and functional role of outer resin portion (5) in Yamada bears no correspondence to the ceiling wall (15), bottom wall (11), or back wall (19) of the claimed housing.”
Lastly, attorney argued that there is no motivation to combine Kitajima with Yamada and listed functional outcomes or results of the position of the gate mark.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First: yes, gate mark 51 is not located on the uppermost surface of Yamada (which is the very top of 52 of fig. 2), however gate mark 51 is positively located on the uppermost ceiling surface of 5 also seen in fig. 2. The definition of a ceiling (noun) is: (1) the overhead inside lining of a room or (2) material used to ceil a wall or roof of a room (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ceiling); and that is exactly where 51 of 5 is located. Once 5 is formed from molten resin, the top ceiling surface of 5 covers the space that core resin portions 2a, 2b occupies. By definition of a ceiling, no other surfaces of Yamada can be considered an overhead surface or roof of a space or room except for the surface where gate mark 51 is formed. Furthermore, the claim recites, “uppermost ceiling surface” which is fundamentally different from an “uppermost surface”; so, it is not proper to argue about an uppermost surface when the claim recites something very different.
Second, Yamada is not used to disclose or teach a "ceiling wall opposing the bottom wall" or a "back wall linking a rear end portion of the bottom wall to a rear end portion of the ceiling wall,” because Kitajima already discloses those limitations, Yamada was only used to teach the location of the gate mark 51, as can be clearly seen in claim 1 rejection. As a result, that argument is moot and irrelevant.
Lastly, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, someone who is of ordinary skill in the art would have rearranged the gate mark in order to optimize the resin housing such as Yamada. Yamada’s teaching is proof that having the gate mark on an uppermost ceiling surface is a known feature in the field of the invention, and the courts also have found that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, based off the reasons above claim 1 remain rejected.
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 MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights