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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-14 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAlonis et al. US 20090017664 A1 in view of Cohen et al. 6152742.
In reference to claim 1, McAlonis teaches a processor (not shown on 116; fig. 1, but [0012], lines 9-12 mention 112 “may include electrical components (not shown) to enable the assembly 100 to perform certain functions” and this is understood to include “a processor”); and an information handling resource (110, 116; fig. 1) mechanically and electrically coupled to the processor and comprising: a circuit board (116; fig. 1, 2) having a non-chamfered edge (see fig. 2); and a straddle mount connector (110; fig. 1) mounted to the non-chamfered edge of the circuit board and configured to receive an edge connector of a second circuit board (114; fig. 1) in order to electrically and mechanically couple the second circuit board to the circuit board, a receptacle (near lead line 164; fig. 2) for receiving the edge connector.
However McAlonis does not teach the straddle mount connector comprising: a first member surface mounted to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge; and a second member surface mounted to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge, such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector.
It would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to make the straddle mount connector into a first member surface mounted to a first side of the circuit board and a second member surface mounted to a second side of the circuit board, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Cohen teaches the straddle mount connector (106; fig. 1) comprising: a first member surface (left 106; fig. 1) mounted to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge (i.e. the distal end of 102; fig. 1); and a second member surface (right 106; fig. 1) mounted to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge (see fig. 1), such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector. Using the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis to arrive at the results of claim 1 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to provide a connector that is detachable from the circuit board. The connector still mounts onto the circuit board, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 2, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach the straddle mount connector further comprising one or more mechanical features configured to create a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Cohen teaches the straddle mount connector further comprising one or more mechanical features (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 2) configured to create a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 3, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Cohen does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features (elements 120, 122 ensure alignment and securing of the first member and the second member. When secured together, these elements assures that the terminals are held in position within the connector. Therefore, the elements 120, 122 are seen as terminal position assurance features ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely align the first and second member for assembly.
In reference to claim 4, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners. (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 5, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a mechanical clip.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners. (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 6, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 7, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock.
Cohen teaches the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 8, McAlonis teaches a circuit board (116; fig. 1) having anon-chamfered edge (see fig. 2); and a straddle mount connector (110) mounted to the non-chamfered edge of the circuit board and configured to receive an edge connector of a second circuit board (114) in order to electrically and mechanically couple the second circuit board to the circuit board, a receptacle (near lead line 164; fig. 2) for receiving the edge connector.
However McAlonis does not teach the straddle mount connector comprising: a first member surface mounted to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge; and a second member surface mounted to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge, such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector.
It would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to make the straddle mount connector into a first member surface mounted to a first side of the circuit board and a second member surface mounted to a second side of the circuit board, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Cohen teaches the straddle mount connector (106; fig. 1) comprising: a first member surface (left 106; fig. 1) mounted to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge (i.e. the distal end of 102; fig. 1); and a second member surface (right 106; fig. 1) mounted to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge (see fig. 1), such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector. Using the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis to arrive at the results of claim 8 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to provide a connector that is detachable from the circuit board. The connector still mounts onto the circuit board, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 9, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach the straddle mount connector further comprising one or more mechanical features configured to create a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Cohen teaches the straddle mount connector further comprising one or more mechanical features ((see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 9) configured to create a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 10, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features (elements 120, 122 ensure alignment and securing of the first member and the second member. When secured together, these elements assures that the terminals are held in position within the connector. Therefore, the elements 120, 122 are seen as terminal position assurance features ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely align the first and second member for assembly.
In reference to claim 11, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 12, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a mechanical clip.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a mechanical clip (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 13, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 14, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 15, McAlonis teaches a method for making an information handling resource having a circuit board (116; fig. 1, 2) and a straddle mount connector (110; fig. 1) mounted to a non-chamfered edge (see fig. 2) of the circuit board and configured to receive an edge connector of a second circuit board (114; fig. 1) in order to electrically and mechanically couple the second circuit board to the circuit board, a receptacle (near lead line 164; fig. 2) for receiving the edge connector.
However McAlonis does not teach surface mounting a first member of the straddle mount connector to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge; and surface mounting a second member of the straddle mount connector to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge, such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector.
Cohen teaches surface mounting a first member (left 106; fig. 1) of the straddle mount connector to a first side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge (i.e. the distal end of 102; fig. 1); and surface mounting a second member (right 106) of the straddle mount connector to a second side of the circuit board proximate to the non-chamfered edge, such that the second member and the first member define a receptacle for receiving the edge connector (see fig. 1). ). Using the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis to arrive at the results of claim 15 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to provide a connector that is detachable from the circuit board. The connector still mounts onto the circuit board, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 16, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach further comprising creating, with one or more mechanical features, a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Cohen teaches further comprising creating, with one or more mechanical features (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 16), a mechanical force between the first member and the second member to ensure at least one of a desired contact gap and a normal force between pins of the straddle mount connector.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 17, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more terminal position assurance features (elements 120, 122 ensure alignment and securing of the first member and the second member. When secured together, these elements assures that the terminals are held in position within the connector. Therefore, the elements 120, 122 are seen as terminal position assurance features ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely align the first and second member for assembly.
In reference to claim 18, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners. (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 19, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a mechanical clip.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise one or more fasteners. (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 20, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive.
Cohen teaches wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise an adhesive (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
In reference to claim 21, McAlonis substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However McAlonis does not teach wherein the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock.
Cohen teaches the one or more mechanical features comprise a fork-lock (see col. 3, lines 49-56 where it particularly states “… Once aligned, the two halves of connector 100 are held together by rivets, screws or by any other convenient means.” Therefore, this is seen to encompass the limitations of claim 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Cohen to modify McAlonis in order to surely secure the first member and second member together on the circuit board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 TRAVIS SLOAN CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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.
/TRAVIS S CHAMBERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 04/08/2026
Prosecution Insights