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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the positioning and clamping holes and the mounting clamping platform of the main housing must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first occurring abbreviation “PCB” in line 2 should be written with a full terminology with the abbreviation enclosed within a parenthesis. Also, in lines 7 and 10, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “the PCB board” to -- the PCB -- because the full terminology of PCB is a printed circuit board. Therefore, when “PCB board” is written in full terminology, “PCB board” will be -- printed circuit board board --, which does not make sense to the word “board” twice.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0006], line 2, the first occurring abbreviation “a PCB board” should be written with a full terminology with the abbreviation enclosed within a parenthesis. Also, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “a PCB board” to -- a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) --.
In the specification, other than the first occurring abbreviation “PCB board 6” described in Paragraph [0006], the examiner suggests the applicant to change “PCB board 6” to -- PCB 6 --.
Paragraph [0039], line 3, the first occurring abbreviation “30WAG” should be written with a full terminology with the abbreviation enclosed within a parenthesis
Paragraph [0044], line 5, the first occurring abbreviation “LCP” should be written with a full terminology with the abbreviation enclosed within a parenthesis.
Paragraph [0044], line 8, “the slots 52” should be -- the slots 51 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “a PCB board” to -- a printed circuit board (PCB) --.
Claim 1, lines 8 and 13-14, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “the PCB board” to -- the PCB --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, the main housing does not have any structural relationship with the plurality of elastic pieces, the spacer assembly, and the isolation frame. Therefore, it is not clear how the main housing is assembled with the plurality of elastic pieces, the spacer assembly, and the isolation frame.
In claim 4, line 3, it is not clear where “positioning and clamping holes” of the main housing is since this element does not have an assigned reference number and the drawings are not pointing at this element with a line with the assigned reference number.
In claim 5, line 4, it is not clear where “a mounting clamping platform” of the main housing is since this element does not have an assigned reference number and the drawings are not pointing at this element with a line with the assigned reference number.
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al (US 10,367,280 B2) in view of Feng (CN-113224598 A).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 10, Lloyd discloses a connector 100 with a C-shaped elastic piece configured to connect to a PCB board 53, comprising: (claim 1) a main housing 116, wherein two main housings 116a, 116b symmetrically spliced are provided; a plurality of groups of wires 80 uniformly distributed along a length direction of the main housing 116, wherein any one group of wires comprise a signal wire 81 and a ground wire 83; a plurality of elastic pieces 102 separately welded with the signal wire 81 of the wires 80, wherein each elastic piece 102 comprises a welding part 103 welded with the signal wire 81 and an abutting part 107 abutted against the PCB board 53, the abutting part 107 is arranged in a C shape (column 11, lines 19-20); a spacer assembly 109 comprising a plurality of separation spaces for separating adjacent clastic pieces 102; and an isolation frame 98 provided with a plurality of slots 99a for the elastic pieces 102 to pass through, wherein pass through the isolation frame 98 and are abutted against the PCB board 53; (claim 5) wherein the isolation frame 98 is a plastic isolation frame, the isolation frame 98 is docked with the main housing 116, the isolation frame 98 is provided with a mounting clamping groove 126 (see Fig. 7), and the main housing 116 is provided with a mounting clamping platform 123 correspondingly clamped to the mounting clamping groove 126 (claim 10) wherein any one of the main housings 116a or 116b is provided with a positioning post (not labeled, see Fig. 8D) and a positioning hole (not labeled, see Fig. 8D) for being spliced with another main housing 116a or 116b.
However, Lloyd does not disclose a thickness of the welding part being set to be 0.05 mm, and a thickness of the abutting part being set to be 0.12 mm.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the elastic piece 102, which is an electrical contact that can be made in many different shapes and sizes depending on the function of the electrical connector and the electrical contact. Therefore, making the welding part and the abutting part of the elastic piece with the dimensions taught by the instant invention only deals with changing the sizes of the welding part and the abutting part.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the welding part and the abutting part taught by Llyod such that they would have the dimensions as taught by the instant invention because making the welding part and the abutting part with the dimensions taught by the instant invention only deals with changing the sizes. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Lloyd discloses the elastic piece 102 passing through the slot 99a of the isolation frame 98.
However, Lloyd does not disclose the elastic piece 102 extending to 0.3 mm outside the isolation frame 98.
On the other hand, extending the elastic piece outside the isolation frame by 0.3 mm only deals with the rearrangement of part because whether the elastic piece is extended outside the isolation frame by less than 0.3 mm or more than 0.3 mm, the function of the connector will not change as long as the elastic piece remains electrical contact with the PCB.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector taught by Llyod such that it would have the elastic piece extending to 0.3 mm outside the isolation frame as taught by the instant invention because whether the elastic piece is extended outside the isolation frame by less than 0.3 mm or more than 0.3 mm, the function of the connector will not change as long as the elastic piece remains electrical contact with the PCB. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 7-9, claim 7 recites, “the wire is provided as a wire in model 30WAG”; claim 8 recites, “the elastic piece is provided as a copper sheet”; and claim 9 recites, “the main housing is provided as a plastic housing”. Basically, claims 7-9 recite the materials for the wire, the elastic piece and the main housing. Also, the three materials for the wire, the elastic piece and the main housing are commonly known and used materials exist in the world. Therefore, the use of the three materials recited in claims 7-9 only deals with the use of preferred materials.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connector taught by Lloyd such that it would have a wire in model 30WAG, a copper sheet, and a plastic to form the wire, the elastic piece, and the main housing, respectively as taught by the instant invention because these three materials are commonly known and used materials exist in the world, which only deals with the use of preferred materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 A 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831