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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 634 and 640, as shown in figure 6. The Examiner believes for 634, the “624” on page 12 line 6 should read --634--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connector pad portion and connector pads, as claimed in claims 3, 9, and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With regard to claims 3, 9, and 15, it is unclear where the connector pad portion comprising connector pads is located, as no structural relationship to the rest of the connector is disclosed. For prior art analysis, any connector pad portion containing connector pads in or connected to a connector will be considered to meet this limitation.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regnier et al. (2006/0009080).
With regard to claim 1, Regnier teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “A low profile connector 500 for use with a low profile connector system, comprising: a connector housing 504, the connector housing 504 defining a card insertion portion (where 556 is received in 505 in figure 20), the card insertion portion being positioned along an edge of a printed circuit board 501… and wherein the connector housing 504 is mounted to the printed circuit board 501 at a specifically configured connector mounting position (shown in figure 20) to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
That embodiment of Regnier does not specifically teach “a connector datum contained within the connector housing, the connector datum extending from one interior side of the connector housing to another interior side of the connector housing”. However, Regnier also teaches, in the embodiment shown in figures 15-16: “a connector datum (right end of 210 in figure 16) contained within the connector housing 201, the connector datum extending from one interior side 211 of the connector housing to another interior side 212 of the connector housing 201”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these features with the above embodiment of Renier in order to provide structural integrity of the connector housing while retaining the terminals (Regnier, paragraph 62).
With regard to claim 2, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 73: “wherein: the specifically configured connector mounting position is configured such that a distance from the connector datum to an edge of the printed circuit board 501 is optimized to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
With regard to claim 3, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “further comprising: a connector pad portion (area where terminals 505 connect to 501 in figure 23), the connector pad comprising connector pads (where each individual terminal 505 connects to 501 in figure 23) corresponding to a specifically configured connector pad size dimension (the figures show the pads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 4, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “further comprising: a connector front lead portion (right end of 500 in figure 23), the connector front lead portion comprising connector front leads (where 505 connect to 550 in figure 20) corresponding to a specifically configured front lead dimension (the figures show the leads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 5, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile connector 500 corresponds to a low profile specification (taught in paragraph 4)”.
With regard to claim 7, Regnier teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “A low profile connector system comprising: a printed circuit board 501; and, a low profile connector 500 mounted on the printed circuit board 501, the low profile connector 500 comprising: a connector housing 504, the connector housing 504 defining a card insertion portion (where 556 is received in 505 in figure 20), the card insertion portion being positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board 501… and wherein the connector housing 504 is mounted to the printed circuit board 501 at a specifically configured connector mounting portion to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
That embodiment of Regnier does not specifically teach: “a connector datum contained within the connector housing, the connector datum extending from one interior side of the connector housing to another interior side of the connector housing”. However, Regnier also teaches, in the embodiment shown in figures 15-16: “a connector datum (right end of 210 in figure 16) contained within the connector housing 201, the connector datum extending from one interior side 211 of the connector housing to another interior side 212 of the connector housing 201”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these features with the above embodiment of Renier in order to provide structural integrity of the connector housing while retaining the terminals (Regnier, paragraph 62).
With regard to claim 8, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 7”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 73: “wherein: the specifically configured connector mounting position is configured such that a distance from the connector datum to an edge of the printed circuit board 501 is optimized to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
With regard to claim 9, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 8”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “wherein the low profile connector 500 further comprising: a connector pad portion (area where terminals 505 connect to 501 in figure 23), the connector pad comprising connector pads (where each individual terminal 505 connects to 501 in figure 23) corresponding to a specifically configured connector pad size dimension (the figures show the pads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 10, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 7”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “wherein the low profile connector 500 further comprising: a connector front lead portion (right end of 500 in figure 23), the connector front lead portion comprising connector front leads (where 505 connect to 550 in figure 20) corresponding to a specifically configured front lead dimension (the figures show the leads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 11, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 7”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile connector 500 corresponds to a low profile specification (taught in paragraph 4)”.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regnier et al. (2006/0009080) in view of Zhao et al. (TWM628001U).
With regard to claim 6, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector system of claim 5”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile specification comprises a… low profile specification”.
Regnier does not teach the specification “comprises a PCI Express M.2”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zhao teaches, as taught on page 2 lines 36-37 of the translation, the specification of the connector “comprises a PCI Express M.2”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the low profile connector as a PCI Express M.2 in order to connect to an M.2 module transmitting PCI-EXPRESS signals (Zhao, translation page 2 lines 36-37).
With regard to claim 12, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector system of claim 11”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile specification comprises a… low profile specification”.
Regnier does not teach the specification “comprises a PCI Express M.2”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zhao teaches, as taught on page 2 lines 36-37 of the translation, the specification of the connector “comprises a PCI Express M.2”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the low profile connector as a PCI Express M.2 in order to connect to an M.2 module transmitting PCI-EXPRESS signals (Zhao, translation page 2 lines 36-37).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regnier et al. (2006/0009080) in view of Smith et al. (2006/0002095).
With regard to claim 13, Regnier teaches: “A system comprising… a low profile connector system, the low profile connector system comprising: a printed circuit board 501; and, a low profile connector 500 mounted on the printed circuit board 501, the low profile connector 500 comprising: a connector housing 504, the connector housing 504 defining a card insertion portion (where 556 is received in 505 in figure 20), the card insertion portion being positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board 501… and wherein the connector housing 504 is mounted to the printed circuit board 501 at a specifically configured connector mounting portion to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
That embodiment of Regnier does not specifically teach: “a connector datum contained within the connector housing, the connector datum extending from one interior side of the connector housing to another interior side of the connector housing”. However, Regnier also teaches, in the embodiment shown in figures 15-16: “a connector datum (right end of 210 in figure 16) contained within the connector housing 201, the connector datum extending from one interior side 211 of the connector housing to another interior side 212 of the connector housing 201”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these features with the above embodiment of Renier in order to provide structural integrity of the connector housing while retaining the terminals (Regnier, paragraph 62).
Regnier does not specifically teach the system comprising “a processor; a data bus coupled to the processor”. However, this is merely a statement of the intended use of the low profile connector system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the low profile connector system of Regnier with a system comprising a process and a data bus coupled to the processor, since doing so is well known in the art and allows expansion of computer systems (see Smith, paragraph 4 describing use of card connectors in computer systems, which inherently have processors and data buses connected to those processors to transmit data to other parts of the computer).
With regard to claim 14, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 13”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 73: “wherein: the specifically configured connector mounting position is configured such that a distance from the connector datum to an edge of the printed circuit board 501 is optimized to allow insertion of a double sided peripheral card 556 into the card insertion portion”.
With regard to claim 15, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 13”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “wherein the low profile connector 500 further comprising: a connector pad portion (area where terminals 505 connect to 501 in figure 23), the connector pad comprising connector pads (where each individual terminal 505 connects to 501 in figure 23) corresponding to a specifically configured connector pad size dimension (the figures show the pads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 16, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 13”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23: “wherein the low profile connector 500 further comprising: a connector front lead portion (right end of 500 in figure 23), the connector front lead portion comprising connector front leads (where 505 connect to 550 in figure 20) corresponding to a specifically configured front lead dimension (the figures show the leads having a specific lead dimension)”.
With regard to claim 17, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector of claim 13”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches, as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile connector 500 corresponds to a low profile specification (taught in paragraph 4)”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regnier et al. (2006/0009080) in view of Smith et al. (2006/0002095) and Zhao et al. (TWM628001U).
With regard to claim 18, Regnier teaches: “The low profile connector system of claim 17”, as shown above.
Regnier also teaches as shown in figures 20-23 and taught in paragraph 4: “wherein: the low profile specification comprises a… low profile specification”.
Regnier does not teach the specification “comprises a PCI Express M.2”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zhao teaches, as taught on page 2 lines 36-37 of the translation, the specification of the connector “comprises a PCI Express M.2”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the low profile connector as a PCI Express M.2 in order to connect to an M.2 module transmitting PCI-EXPRESS signals (Zhao, translation page 2 lines 36-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831