DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on October 24, 2023.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (“means” or “said”): line 10, “means of interference fit.” 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).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of interference fit of a shaft and a hole” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Line 8: “at least one end of the pin is arranged at 90°,” (90° relative to what?); and
Lines 9-10: “anti-deformation structure matching the shaft and the hole,” (there is insufficient structure for the reader to understand what is meant by “matching the shaft and the hole”).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, et al. (US-6033258-A) in view of Suzuki, et al. (US-20110201237-A1).
With respect to Claim 1:
Huang discloses a double-row connector 10 supporting plastic coating (claim 1: the housings are described as "a first insulative housing" and "a second insulating housing," thus suggesting they could be coated in a plastic or other non-conducting material), comprising:
a double-row connector body 24 (Figs. 10-11) formed by secondary plastic coating, wherein
the double-row connector body consists of a first single-row-pin connector body and a second single-row-pin connector body (Fig. 11: 24 consists of two separate bodies, the first being on the top and the second being on the bottom), wherein
the first single-row-pin connector body and the second single-row-pin connector body are assembled by means of interference fit of a shaft 82 and a hole 84 (Fig. 11; col. 3, lines 50-60),
the first single-row-pin connector body and the second single-row-pin connector body are provided with no less than one group of pins 26 (Fig. 11),
at least one end of the pin is arranged at 90° (Figs. 2 and 10-12),
the pin is wrapped in a plastic coating body 68, 70 (Fig. 4), and
two ends of the pin are partially exposed out of the plastic coating body (Fig. 10).
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the pin is provided with an anti-deformation structure matching the shaft and the hole.
However, Suzuki teaches a board terminal 10 with an anti-deformation structure comprising projected portions 26 which reduce movement and deformation by exerting pressure on the internal surfaces of the hole 56 in which the terminal is inserted (Figs. 6-7; [0061]), matching an interference fit similar to that of the shaft and the hole.
Thus, Huang and Suzuki each disclose connectors and designs for housing terminals/pins. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the anti-deformation structure of Suzuki could be combined with the pins of Huang because it would increase the friction between the pin and the body which houses the pin, thereby reducing any deformation or slippage that the pin may experience. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 2:
Huang in view of Suzuki discloses the double-row connector supporting plastic coating according to claim 1.
Huang further discloses wherein the plastic coating body of the first single-row-pin connector body is provided with the holes 84 (Fig. 11), and the plastic coating body of the second single-row-pin connector body is provided with the shafts 82 in interference fit with the holes 84 (Fig. 11). (The claim does not state that each connector body may not have both of the holes and the shafts. However, this relationship is already known in the art; see, for example, Wan, et al. (US-20100159746-A1))
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, et al. (US-6033258-A) in view of Suzuki, et al. (US-20110201237-A1), further in view of Wan, et al. (US-20100159746-A1).
With respect to Claim 8:
Huang in view of Suzuki discloses the double-row connector supporting plastic coating according to claim 2.
Huang in view of Suzuki does not explicitly disclose "wherein a tail end of the shaft is rounded."
However, Wan teaches a coupling of single-row connector bodies via an interference fit between rounded shafts 1121/1122 and holes 1113/1131 (Figs. 2-3; [0014]).
Thus, Huang and Wan each disclose coupling single-row connector bodies via interference fit. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the rounded tail ends of the shafts of Wan could be combined with the shafts of Huang because it would allow for smoother insertion. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein a circumferential surface of the shaft is provided with a fillet extending in a direction of the shaft, and the fillet is in transition fit with an inner wall of the hole,” as recited in claim 3, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 3. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 3, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 4, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the anti-deformation structure comprises a semicircular recess provided in the pin,” as recited in claim 4, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 4. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 4, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claims 5-7 are dependent on claim 4 and would therefore be allowable.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 3 and would therefore be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights