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 .
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. (3,566,334) in view of Hatagishi et al. (5,344,194).
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler, JR, Fig. 3 shows a ganged connector assembly, comprising:
a shell (13) comprising a plurality of electrically isolated cavities (12), the shell having a generally square footprint defined by first, second, third and fourth sides;
a plurality of coaxial connectors (1), each of the coaxial connectors residing in a
respective cavity of the shell;
a plurality of coaxial cables (3), each of the coaxial cables being connected with a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors;
wherein the first side is opposite the third side and the second side is opposite the fourth side.
Ziegler, JR discloses the claimed invention as described above except for a latch is directly pivotally attached to the first and third sides; and each of the first and third sides includes a recess configured to receive a pin on a mating structure, once the pin is received in each recess, the latch pivots to engage the pins to secure the assembly to the mating structure.
Hatagishi et al. disclose a latch (C, Fig. 1) is directly pivotally attached to the first and third sides (Fig. 2A); and each of the first and third sides includes a recess (6, Fig. 1) configured to receive a pin (3) on a mating structure (1), once the pin is received in each recess, the latch pivots to engage the pins to secure the assembly to the mating structure (Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR to have a latch is directly pivotally attached to the first and third sides; and each of the first and third sides includes a recess configured to receive a pin on a mating structure, once the pin is received in each recess, the latch pivots to engage the pins to secure the assembly to the mating structure, as taught by Hatagishi et al. for better engaging.
Regarding claim 2, Ziegler, JR., Fig. 3 shows the cavities are arranged in a cruciform arrangement, with a first (a middle of 12) of the cavities being a central cavity, and wherein a second and a third (at a top line of 12) of the cavities define a first line that passes through the first cavity, and wherein a fourth and a fifth (at a bottom line of 12) of the cavities define a second line that passes through the first cavity.
Regarding claim 4, Ziegler, JR., Fig. 3 shows the plurality of coaxial connectors is five coaxial connectors.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. (3,566,334) in view of Roos (1,793,015).
Regarding claim 11, Ziegler, JR., Fig. 3 shows a ganged connector assembly, comprising:
a shell (13) comprising a plurality of electrically isolated cavities (12), the shell having a generally square footprint defined by first, second, third and fourth sides;
a plurality of coaxial connectors (1), each of the coaxial connectors residing in a
respective cavity of the shell;
a plurality of coaxial cables (3), each of the coaxial cables being connected with a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors;
wherein the first side is opposite the third side and the second side is opposite the fourth side;
registration features (17 and 22) are positioned adjacent the second and
fourth sides.
Ziegler, JR. discloses the claimed invention as described above except for each of the first and third sides includes a recess configured to receive a pin from a mating structure.
Roos, Figs. 1-3 show a recess (9) configured to receive a pin (7) from a mating structure (1). It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR. to have a recess configured to receive a pin from a mating structure, as taught by Roos, in order to have more security between both structures in a locked position.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Roos, Figs. 1 and 2 show a latch (20) pivotally mounted to the first and third sides.
Regarding claim 14, Ziegler, JR., Fig. 3 shows the plurality of coaxial connectors is five coaxial connectors and the plurality of cavities comprises five cavities in a cruciform arrangement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. and Hatagishi et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Welch (9,711,956).
Regarding claim 5, Ziegler JR. and Hatagishi et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the coaxial cable attached to the coaxial connector residing the first central cavity is smaller.
Welch, Figs. 5 and 6 show a coaxial cable (91, Fig. 5) is attached to the coaxial connector residing the first central cavity is smaller. It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR. to have the coaxial cable attached to the coaxial connector residing the first central cavity is smaller, as taught by Welch for grounding or control purposes (Welch, column 4, lines 64-66).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. and Hatagishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stowers et al. (5,936,421).
Regarding claim 6, Ziegler JR. and Hatagishi et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a spring is present in each of the cavities, each of the springs engaging a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors and permitting the coaxial connector to float radially and axially relative to the shell.
Stowers et al., Fig. 20 shows a spring (371) is present in each of the cavities (325), each of the springs engaging a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors and permitting the coaxial connector to float radially and axially relative to the shell. It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR. to have a spring is present in each of the cavities, as taught by Stowers et al. for better connection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. and Roos as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Welch (9,711,956).
Regarding claim 15, Ziegler, JR. and Roos disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a central cavity is smaller compared to the remaining coaxial cables.
Welch, Figs. 5 and 6 show a cable (91, Fig. 5) is smaller compared to the remaining coaxial cables. It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR. to have a central cavity is smaller compared to the remaining coaxial cables, as taught by Welch for grounding or control purposes (Welch, column 4, lines 64-66).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler, JR. and Roos as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stowers et al. (5,936,421).
Regarding claim 16, Ziegler JR. and Hatagishi et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a spring is present in each of the cavities, each of the springs engaging a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors and permitting the coaxial connector to float radially and axially relative to the shell.
Stowers et al., Fig. 20 shows a spring (371) is present in each of the cavities (325), each of the springs engaging a respective one of the plurality of coaxial connectors and permitting the coaxial connector to float radially and axially relative to the shell. It would have been obvious to modify Ziegler, JR. to have a spring is present in each of the cavities, as taught by Stowers et al. for better connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues Ziegler is not disclosed registration features: “In response, Applicant notes that "17 and 22" of Ziegler are "threaded holes" that receive screws 15, 20 in order to secure retaining plates 14, 19 on the block 13. Ziegler mentions no registration function associated with either the screws 15, 20 or the holes 17, 22. In fact, given their location, they would not provide a registration function; the block 13 could be oriented either in the orientation shown in FIG. 3 or 180 degrees from that orientation based on the positions of the holes 17, 22. Thus, citation of the holes as meeting the recitation of registration features is simply incorrect.”
The Examiner disagrees. Since the claim is not disclosed any structures or functions of registration features. Therefore, as long as 17 and 22 of Ziegler are positioned adjacent the second and fourth sides, then 17 and 22 are registration features.
Applicant also argues: “Moreover, as discussed above, the Ziegler arrangement already includes screws 27, which are inserted into threaded holes 28, to secure the groups of connectors 1, 2 together. Thus, the inclusion of a recess like that of Roos to receive a pin would provide an extraneous and unnecessary securement method, thereby increasing cost and complexity. Thus, one of skill in this art would be disinclined to add a recess for these reasons, thus providing an additional rationale for Applicant's contention that the subject matter of Claim 11 defines over the art of record.”
The Examiner disagrees. Although Ziegler includes screws 27 are inserted into threaded hole 28 to secure the groups of connectors 1 and 2 together, but a recess of Roos to receive a pin would provide more security between the connectors 1 and 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 THANH TAM T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2094. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Abdul 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.
/THANH TAM T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 08/12/26
thanh-tam.le@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights