DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. US 9634425 (“Hsu”).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses an electrical connector 100 comprising:
a lead assembly comprising a body portion 10 and a plurality of conductive elements 30 held by the body portion;
an inner shell 40 disposed outside the lead assembly, the inner shell at least partially enclosing the body portion of the lead assembly and comprising a mating end;
an outer shell 50 disposed outside the inner shell and connected to the inner shell at selected locations, the outer shell comprising a mating end, wherein the mating end of the inner shell extends beyond the mating end of the outer shell (see e.g. figure 6); and
a seal 61 on both the inner shell and the outer shell (see e.g., Figure 5, col. 4, lines 50 – col 5 line 35.
The seal 61 is “attached” to the inner shell 40 at least by being tightly looped onto it (col. 4, lines 60-65). The seal may be merely abutting, but possibly not “attached” to the outer shell 50.
Hsu further discloses seal 62 which is explicitly made from a waterproof adhesive (col 4, line 55). It would have been obvious to likewise form the seal 61 from a waterproof adhesive, such that the seal would be “attached” to the abutting surfaces of the inner and outer shields. The reason would have been to ensure a waterproof junction between the seal and the abutting shell surfaces. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
The resulting seal would comprise a first surface (the surface facing the inner shell 40) attached to a surface of the mating end of the inner shell,
a second surface (the surface facing blocking portions 56 of the outer shell 5) attached to a surface of the mating end of the outer shell, and
a third surface (the exposed surface of the seal as shown in figure 5, not facing the inner or outer shells) connecting the first surface and the third surface and inherently configured to deform in a mating direction of the electrical connector (col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 20, the seal will be inherently compressed by stopping step 83 of receiving groove 82 in the mating direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
912
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, there is a corner portion (labeled CN above) between a surface of the mating end of the inner shell and a surface of the mating end of the outer shell, wherein the seal is disposed in the corner portion.
Per claim 3, the seal is attached to at least a portion of a surface of the mating end of the inner shell, and the portion of the surface of the inner shell extends, in the mating direction, beyond the outer shell.
Per claim 4, as set out regarding claim 1, the seal is attached to at least a portion of a surface of the mating end of the outer shell, and the surface of the outer shell is transverse to the surface of the inner shell.
Per claim 6 the mating end of the outer shell comprises a flange portion 56 extending outward of the outer shell; and the corner portion is between the surface of the mating end of the inner shell and a surface of the flange portion of the mating end of the outer shell.
Regarding claim 7, to the extent that Hsu does not explicitly state that the seal is elastically deformable, the examiner takes Official notice that it was well known in the art that the seal between a connector and a casing, such as the seal 61 of Hsu, be elastically deformable, in order to perform its function of providing a waterproof seal. As such, it would have been obvious for the Hsu seal 61 to be elastically deformable.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu does not specify the range of elastic deformation. At the time of the invention, workable ranges of elastic deformation of the seal would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the deformation distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)(Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Per claim 9 the body portion of the lead assembly comprises an opening 112 that exposes portions of the plurality of conductive elements; and
the electrical connector comprises a body seal 62 disposed in the opening of the body portion of the lead assembly (col. 5, lines 20-35).
Per claim 10 the outer shell comprises a window (the rear of the first shell, col. 5, lines 25-30) aligned with the opening of the body portion of the lead assembly.
Per claim 11 the lead assembly comprises a tongue portion 12 extending from the body portion in a mating direction and exposed at the mating end of the inner shell.
Per claim 12, Hsu discloses an electrical connector comprising:
an outer shell 50 comprising a mating end;
an inner shell 40 disposed in the outer shell and comprising a mating end extending beyond the mating end of the outer shell;
a lead assembly comprising a body portion 10 at least partially disposed in the inner shell and a plurality of conductive elements 30 held by the body portion; and
a seal 61 disposed on a surface of the mating end of the inner shell so as to block a path between the mating end of the inner shell and the mating end of the outer shell.
The seal 61 is “attached” to the inner shell 40 at least by being tightly looped onto it (col. 4, lines 60-65). The seal may be merely abutting, but possibly not “attached” to the outer shell 50.
Hsu further discloses seal 62 which is explicitly made from a waterproof adhesive (col 4, line 55). It would have been obvious to likewise form the seal 61 from a waterproof adhesive, such that the seal would be “attached” to the abutting surfaces of the inner and outer shields. The reason would have been to ensure a waterproof junction between the seal and the abutting shell surfaces. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
The resulting seal would comprise a first surface (the surface facing the inner shell 40) attached to a surface of the mating end of the inner shell,
a second surface (the surface facing blocking portions 56 of the outer shell 5) attached to a surface of the mating end of the outer shell, and
a third surface (the exposed surface of the seal as shown in figure 5, not facing the inner or outer shells) connecting the first surface and the third surface and inherently configured to deform in a mating direction of the electrical connector (col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 20, the seal will be inherently compressed by stopping step 83 of receiving groove 82 in the mating direction).
Per claim 13, the third surface is within a perimeter of the outer shell.
Regarding claim 14, the connector is mated with a port 81 of case 80 of electronic device 200.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu discloses that the outer shell comprises a front portion and a rear portion; the front portion comprises the mating end of the outer shell; and the rear portion comprises mounting tails (labeled MT above).
Regarding claim 16, blocking arms 55 form connected spots between the inner and outer shells (i.e., the locations are brought into contact with each other, col. 4, lines 45-46).
Per claim 18, Hsu discloses an electronic device comprising:
a chassis 80 comprising a port 81; and
an electrical connector 100 mated with the chassis, the electrical connector comprising:
an outer shell 50 comprising a mating end facing the port of the chassis;
an inner shell 40 disposed in the outer shell and comprising a mating end facing the port of the chassis and extending beyond the mating end of the outer shell;
a plurality of conductive elements 30 at least partially disposed in the inner shell; and a seal 61.
The seal 61 is “attached” to the inner shell 40 at least by being tightly looped onto it (col. 4, lines 60-65). The seal may be merely abutting, but possibly not “attached” to the outer shell 50.
Hsu further discloses seal 62 which is explicitly made from a waterproof adhesive (col 4, line 55). It would have been obvious to likewise form the seal 61 from a waterproof adhesive, such that the seal would be “attached” to the abutting surfaces of the inner and outer shields. The reason would have been to ensure a waterproof junction between the seal and the abutting shell surfaces. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
The resulting seal would comprise a first surface (the surface facing the inner shell 40) attached to a surface of the mating end of the inner shell,
a second surface (the surface facing blocking portions 56 of the outer shell 5) attached to a surface of the mating end of the outer shell, and
a third surface (the exposed surface of the seal as shown in figure 5, not facing the inner or outer shells) connecting the first surface and the third surface and inherently configured to deform in a mating direction of the electrical connector (col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 20, the seal will be inherently compressed by stopping step 83 of receiving groove 82 in the mating direction).
Per claim 19, the chassis comprises a recess 82; and the seal of the electrical connector is disposed in the recess.
Per claim 20, the chassis comprises a protrusion 83 in the recess; and the protrusion engages the seal of the electrical connector.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Stobie et al. US 5604976. Hsu does not state that the seal is made from a UV curable adhesive. Stobie discloses a seal portion 30 where the seal is made from a UV curable adhesive (col. 6, lines 35-50). It would have been obvious to make the Hsu seal out of suitable materials, such as a UV curable adhesive as taught in Stobie, to provide a waterproof resilient seal. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao US 10355396 in view of Zhao US 10109948. Regarding claim 12, Zhao ‘396 discloses an electrical connector comprising:
an outer shell 6 comprising a mating end;
an inner shell 5 disposed in the outer shell and comprising a mating end (labeled MAT below) extending at least up to the mating end of the outer shell;
a lead assembly comprising a body portion 1 at least partially disposed in the inner shell and a plurality of conductive elements 2 held by the body portion; and
a seal 7 disposed on a surface of the mating end of the inner shell so as to block a path between the mating end of the inner shell and the mating end of the outer shell (see figures 9-11).
The Zhao ‘396 inner shell 4 mating end may not extend past the outer shell 6. Zhao ‘948 discloses that the inner shell mating end extends past the outer shell mating end (see e.g. figures 9-11. It would have been obvious to have the Zhao ‘396 inner shell mating end extend slightly past the outer shell, as taught in Zhao ‘948. Such a modification would have been a matter of engineering design choice. The substituted components (a slightly longer inner shell for a slightly shorter inner shell) and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
The Zhao seal includes a first surface 74 bearing against a surface of the mating end of the inner shell,
a second surface 73 bearing against the mating end of the outer shell, and
a third surface (the front exposed surface of the seal) connecting the first surface and the third
surface and configured to deform in a mating direction of the electrical connector.
The compression of the seal at surfaces 73 and 74 inherently creates a frictional engagement, i.e., a frictional attachment, at surfaces 73 and 74 to the inner and outer shell. In any case, it would have been obvious to size the seal to be tightly held, i.e., frictionally attached, between the inner and outer seals at surfaces 73 and 74. The reason would have been to ensure a watertight seal between the seal 7 and the inner and outer shells.
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 17 the inner shell comprises a mounting end (labeled MNT above) opposite the mating end; and
the mating end of the inner shell has a cross-sectional area larger than that of the mounting end (the cross sectional area of the mounting end is labeled CSA above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Previous claim 14 claimed that the surface of the seal was configured to be deformed “when the electrical connector is mated . . . .” Applicant has taken the limitation of the surface of the seal being deformed out of the context of claim 14, negating the meaning of the limitation in the claim which had previously been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. The previous indication of allowable subject matter is negated.
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 ROSS N GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler, can be reached at (571)272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834