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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
In regard to claim 1 and 8 Yoshida fails to teach at least one angular recess or projection arranged at least partially on a side of the elevation or depression, the side facing away from the plug-in side in a longitudinal direction along a longitudinal axis of the elongated hollow body.
In regard clam 8, Yoshida fails to teach wherein, in an assembled state, the at least one angular recess or the at least one angular projection of the at least one outer conductor contact rests against the at least one snap-in hook.”
Examiner’s response:
Yoshida still discloses the limitation as stated in claims 1 and 8 which states the following “at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) arranged at least partially on a side of the elevation or depression facing away from the plug-in side (12a) in a longitudinal direction.” Applicant stated in the argument page 6 “at least one angular recess or projection arranged at least partially on a side of the elevation or depression, the side facing away from the plug-in side in a longitudinal direction along a longitudinal axis of the elongated hollow body” which the limitation is not in claim 1 and 8 as presented “the elongated hollow body” is missing in the recent version that submitted in the claims 1 and 8.
In regards to claim 8, Yoshida teaches wherein, in an assembled state, the at least one angular recess or the at least one angular projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) of the at least one outer conductor contact (13) rests against the at least one snap-in hook (21). Applicant indicated angular recess or the one angular projection, applicant should be more specific either recess or projection.
In regards to claims 4 and 5, Applicant provide range of interior Angles from 70 to 100 degrees in claim 4 and in claim 5 range from 85 to 95. Applicant has provide any reasons of having this range and its criticality. For this reason rejection is still maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 2003/0224656 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Yoshida teaches an outer conductor contact (13) for a connector (Fig .9), the outer conductor contact (13) comprising:
an elongated hollow body (13a) defining a longitudinal axis and having a plug-in side (12a) for mating with a mating connector; an elevation or depression extending at least partially in a circumferential direction on an outer surface of the hollow body (13a); and at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) arranged at least partially on a side of the elevation or depression facing away from the plug-in side (12a) in a longitudinal direction.
In Regards to Claim 2:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the elongated hollow body (13a) has a cylindrical shape.
In Regards to Claim 3:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular recess (See Reproduced Drawing 1) comprises a hole or slot.
In Regards to Claim 6:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the outer conductor contact (13) comprises a hard electrically conductive material.
In Regards to Claim 8:
Yoshida teaches a connector (Fig. 9), comprising:
a housing (20) with at least one plug-in position for an external conductor contact (13); at least one snap-in hook (21) arranged at each plug-in position; and at least one outer conductor contact (13) comprising:
an elongated hollow body (13a) defining a longitudinal axis and having a plug-in side (12a) for mating with a mating connector; an elevation or depression extending at least partially in a circumferential direction on an outer surface (See Reproduced Drawing 1) of the hollow body (13a); and at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) arranged at least partially on a side of the elevation or depression facing away from the plug-in side (12a) in a longitudinal direction, wherein, in an assembled state, the at least one angular recess or the at least one angular projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) of the at least one outer conductor contact (13) rests against the at least one snap-in hook (21).
In Regards to Claim 11:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the side of the elevation or depression (See Reproduced Drawing 1) facing away from the plug-in side (12a) is a stop surface configured to receive and abut against a surface of a snap-in hook.
In Regards to Claim 12:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the side of the elevation or depression (See Reproduced Drawing 1) facing away from the plug-in side (12a) forms a longitudinal periphery the elevation or depression.
In Regards to Claim 13:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) is arranged at a transition between the side of the elevation or depression (See Reproduced Drawing 1) facing away from the plug-in side (12a) and a radial periphery of the elevation or depression (See Reproduced Drawing 1).
In Regards to Claim 14:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) each comprise a curved recess.
In Regards to Claim 15:
Yoshida teaches the outer conductor contact according to claim 1, wherein the at least one angular recess or projection (See Reproduced Drawing 1) is angled relative to the longitudinal direction of the elongated hollow body (13a).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 4-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2003/0224656 A1).
In Regards to Claim 4:
All claim limitations are discussed with respect to Claim 1, Yoshida does not teach wherein the at least one edge of the angular recess or the angular projection has an interior angle in a range of 70 to 100 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have the at least one edge of the angular recess or the angular projection has an interior angle in a range of 70 to 100 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. To provide a coaxial connector in which the impedance matching in the coaxial connector is achieved to reduce the noise radiation amount, the reflection loss of a signal and the like, and a process of mounting the connector on a cable end can be carried out efficiently (Yoshida, Paragraph 13).
In Regards to Claim 5:
All claim limitations are discussed with respect to Claim 4, Yoshida does not teach wherein the interior angle is in a range of 85 to 95 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have the interior angle is in a range of 85 to 95 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. To provide a coaxial connector in which the impedance matching in the coaxial connector is achieved to reduce the noise radiation amount, the reflection loss of a signal and the like, and a process of mounting the connector on a cable end can be carried out efficiently (Yoshida, Paragraph 13).
In Regards to Claim 7:
All claim limitations are discussed with respect to Claim 6, Yoshida does not teach wherein the hard electrically conductive material is a metal or a metal compound.
However, it would have been obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the hard electrically conductive material is a metal or a metal compound, since it has been held to be with the general skill of 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. To provide a coaxial connector in which the impedance matching in the coaxial connector is achieved to reduce the noise radiation amount, the reflection loss of a signal and the like, and a process of mounting the connector on a cable end can be carried out efficiently (Yoshida, Paragraph 13).
In Regards to Claim 9:
All claim limitations are discussed with respect to Claim 8, Yoshida does not teach wherein the snap-in hook comprises a malleable material.
However, it would have been obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the snap-in hook comprises a malleable material, since it has been held to be with the general skill of 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. To provide a coaxial connector in which the impedance matching in the coaxial connector is achieved to reduce the noise radiation amount, the reflection loss of a signal and the like, and a process of mounting the connector on a cable end can be carried out efficiently (Yoshida, Paragraph 13).
In Regards to Claim 10:
All claim limitations are discussed with respect to Claim 9, Yoshida does not teach wherein the malleable material is a plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the malleable material is a plastic, since it has been held to be with the general skill of 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. To provide a coaxial connector in which the impedance matching in the coaxial connector is achieved to reduce the noise radiation amount, the reflection loss of a signal and the like, and a process of mounting the connector on a cable end can be carried out efficiently (Yoshida, Paragraph 13).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NADER J ALHAWAMDEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9Am - 6Pm 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, 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.
/NADER J ALHAWAMDEH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
