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 .
Response to remarks on the restriction reply
The reply filed on 12/29/2025 is not fully responsive. Applicant's election with traverse of Group II; claims 1-13 made in the reply filed on 01/12/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that although the claimed subject matter may be classified in different classes, the inventions are not independent. This is not found persuasive because contrary to applicants’ remarks, the application contains claims directed to patentably distinct species:
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons at least, given above and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction were not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper. In addition to that, a search for and application of prior art to the various species is a burden on the office.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/24/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mongold (US 2006/0110951 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2019/0234086 A1).
Pertaining to claim 1, Mongold discloses An electrical connector (22, 122, see figs. 2, 5-6 and 8) configured to be coupled to a printed circuit board (24, see fig. 7), the electrical connector comprising: a housing (20, see fig. 9); a plurality of pads (see fig. 0014]) on a lower surface of the housing (20); a plurality of pins or receptacles (25, see fig. 3) in the housing; and a plurality of outriggers (117, see fig. 11B) coupled to the housing (20).
But, Mongold does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of outriggers are at different heights.
However, Allen et al. teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of outriggers are at different heights (see fig. 15 and see paragraph [0067]).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least two of the plurality of outriggers are at different heights in the device of Mongold based on the advantage of Allen et al. in order to provide primarily centered on increasing lateral stiffness, reducing stress concentrations, and optimizing load distribution across the structure.
Pertaining to claim 2, Mongold as modified by Allen et al. further discloses, wherein a first pair of outriggers of the plurality of outriggers (117 of Mongold) along a first side of the housing (14 of Allen et al.) is higher than a second pair of outriggers of the plurality of outriggers along a second side of the housing (20 of Mongold).
Pertaining to claim 3, Mongold discloses, wherein the second pair of outriggers (the other side 117) are substantially flush with a lower surface of the housing (20), and wherein the first pair of outriggers (117) are spaced apart from the lower surface by a gap (see fig. 11B).
Pertaining to claim 4, Mongold discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein a height of the gap is substantially equal to a thickness of each of the second pair of outriggers.
However, it would have been on obvious matter of design choice to wherein a height of the gap is substantially equal to a thickness of each of the second pair of outriggers. since such 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).
Pertaining to claim 5, Mongold as modified by Allen et al. further discloses, wherein a first pair of outriggers (the first pair of outriggers 117 of Mongold) of the plurality of outriggers along a first side of the housing (20) are at different heights on the housing (20 of Mongold), and wherein a second pair of outriggers of the plurality of outriggers (second pair of outriggers 117) along a second side of the housing are at different heights (see fig. 15 and see paragraph [0067] of Allen et al.). on the housing (20 of Mongold).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising high-density interconnects; a plurality of surface mount electrical connectors coupled to an edge portion of the printed circuit board, each surface mount electrical connector of the plurality of surface mount electrical connectors comprising a housing, a plurality of outriggers, and a plurality of IO pads; and at least one fastener securing the plurality of surface mount electrical connectors to the printed circuit board, wherein a first surface mount electrical connector and a second surface mount electrical connector of the plurality of surface mount electrical connectors are interlocked on a first side of the printed circuit board, wherein a third surface mount electrical connector and a fourth surface mount electrical connector of the plurality of surface mount electrical connectors are interlocked on a second side of the printed circuit board opposite to the first and second surface mount electrical connectors on the first side of the printed circuit board.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US 2006/0073714 A1) and Werner et al. (US 2014/0073149 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Timothy J Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848