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 Interpretation
Examiner notes at the outset of this action that the instant disclosure contemplates a variety of embodiments. As best understood by Examiner, instant claims 1 and 19 are only applicable to a singular embodiment, particular the embodiment depicted by FIGS 11-16. This results from recitation of the shielding member including the contact arm, rather than some other element connected to the shielding member including the contact arm.
To further elaborate, the embodiment of FIGS 2-4 depicts a shielding member 140 that does not include contact arms because the contact arms 1503 are provided on grounding member 151, a separate and distinct element. Thus, FIGS 2-4 cannot be reasonably interpreted as depicting the subject matter of claims 1 and 19.
The embodiment of FIGS 5-7 is similar, having contact arms 1503 on grounding members 151 that are explicitly disclosed as being a separate element (see instant paragraph [0040]). Thus, FIGS 5-7 cannot be reasonably interpreted as depicting the subject matter of claims 1 and 19.
The embodiment of FIGS 8-10 completely omits a contact arm in electrical contact with the ground terminal(s), thus it FIGS 8-10 cannot be reasonably interpreted as depicting the subject matter of claims 1 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a shielding member having contact arms, does not reasonably provide enablement for a shielding member having contact arms in addition to a separate grounding plate or member. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the subject matter recited by claims 1 and 19 reflects the embodiment of FIGS 11-16. The subject matter of claim 11 is entirely inconsistent with this embodiment as this embodiment explicitly omits the grounding member (see instant paragraph [0042]). As a result, the subject matter of claim 11 is not enabled by the disclosure as filed. Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a shielding member having contact arms, does not reasonably provide enablement for a shielding member having contact arms in addition to a separate grounding plate or member. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As above, the embodiment relevant to claims 1 and 19 does not incorporate a contact leg as recited by claim 15. This subject matter is explicitly recognized by Applicant as belonging to a separate embodiment (see para. [0040]).
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 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites “the installation base” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear which of the plurality of installation bases (as established by claim 16) is being referenced. Indeed, claim 18 itself clearly recognizes the presence of plural installation bases in line 4, making it unclear why Applicant has made such an inconsistent reference to known elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,177,654 (“Ito”).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses:
An electrical connector (title), comprising:
an outer housing (FIG 1:11);
an insulating housing arranged in the outer housing (FIG 2:35, 55);
a pair of terminal assemblies (FIG 3:20, 40) arranged in the insulating housing (as shown by FIG 2) and spaced apart from each other in a first direction (vertical direction) to define an insertion space therebetween (for receiving mating connector, as shown by FIGS 2 and 3), the insertion space adapted to receive a connection terminal of a mating connector (see FIGS 2 and 3), each terminal assembly including a plurality of conductive terminals arranged in rows in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (FIG 4), the plurality of conductive terminals of each terminal assembly (e.g., FIG 5) including a signal terminal (20B) and a ground terminal (20A); and
a shielding member (FIG 2:30, 50) at least partially positioned between the pair of terminal assemblies in the first direction (as shown, elements 30 and 50 are positioned vertically between terminal sets 20 and 40) and including a contact arm (FIG 6:32; FIG 8:52A, 52B) in electrical contact with the ground terminal.
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the shielding member being at least partially positioned between the signal terminals of the pair of terminal assemblies in the first direction (as shown by FIGS 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses each conductive terminal defines a contact section adapted to make electrical contact with the connection terminal of the mating connector (e.g., FIG 3:21, 41) and an opposite installation section adapted to be installed on a circuit board (e.g., FIG 3:25,45), and the shielding member is positioned at least partially between portions of the signal terminals of the pair of terminal assemblies in the first direction (as shown by FIG 3, shielding member 30, 50, is positioned at least partially between 21 and 25 as well as 41 and 45 in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the plurality of conductive terminals of each terminal assembly include at least one pair of differential signal terminals (col. 1, ll. 27-40 discuss the conventional arrangement of differential signal pairs; FIG 5 shows the terminals of Ito using this configuration, thus the signal terminals of Ito may be reasonably interpreted as being pair differential signal terminals) and at least one corresponding pair of ground terminals, and each pair of ground terminals is positioned on two opposite sides of a corresponding pair of differential signal terminals in the second direction (see FIG 5, where the terminals are arranged in G-S-S-G sets).
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the shielding member comprising two subshielding members (FIG 3:30, 50), each subshielding member having a subshielding body in a plate shape (FIGS 7, 8; subshield 30 is generally plate shaped, and subshield 50 comprises two plate shaped structures adjoined by vertical side walls) and the contact arm extending from an edge of the subshielding body toward a corresponding ground terminals (see FIGS 7, 8); and the two subshielding members abut against each other in the first direction (see FIG 3) such that the contact arms of the two subshielding members are disposed away from each other (at least arms 32 and 52A are disposed away from each other).
Regarding claim 6, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 and further discloses each terminal assembly having an installation base into which the plurality of conductive terminals are installed in one or more rows (see, e.g., FIGS 2, 3 and col. 7, ll. 45-57).
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and further discloses the installation base is formed with an insertion protrusion an insertion slot (FIG 2, partition slots 12, i.e., “insertion protrusions,” exist within an insertion slot 16).
Regarding claim 16, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the shielding member comprising two subshielding members (FIG 3:30, 50), each subshielding member having a subshielding body in a plate shape (FIGS 7, 8; subshield 30 is generally plate shaped, and subshield 50 comprises two plate shaped structures adjoined by vertical side walls) and the contact arm extending from an edge of the subshielding body toward a corresponding ground terminals (see FIGS 7, 8); and the two subshielding members abut against each other in the first direction (see FIG 3) such that the contact arms of the two subshielding members are disposed away from each other (at least arms 32 and 52A are disposed away from each other).
Regarding claim 17, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 16 and further discloses a plurality of protrusions (FIG 2:12) formed on a side of each installation base facing another terminal assembly (as shown by FIG 2) and are spaced apart from each other, and a groove is defined between adjacent protrusions (slits 14 and 15).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant merely recites the subject matter of claim 1 in a broader manner. As such, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant merely recites the subject matter found in claims 1 and 5. As such, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of common knowledge within the art.
Regarding claim 9, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 and further discloses each subshielding member having a plurality of contact arms arranged in the second direction (see FIGS 7 and 8) but does not disclose the number of contact arms being equal to the number of ground terminals of each terminal assembly.
Notably, however, the number of contact arms is greater than the number of ground terminals. As seen by FIG 8, subshield 50 comprises upper and lower plates 51a and 51b. Plate 51b includes a plurality of contact arms 52b. Ito does not disclose these arms as being essential or necessary to the disclosed connector; it would appear that they provide some amount of structural support to the terminals to which they are connected, but they do not appear to be essential elements. Indeed, as evidenced by FIG 10, the lower plate is not even necessary as FIG 10 discloses a unibody shield that omits the lower portion of the shield that would correspond to 51b. Omitting these lower contact arms would have the obvious benefit of reducing the material cost of the connector, and the structural function of the lower contact arms may be retained by replacing the lower arms with a cheaper material.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Ito to replace the lower contact arms with a cheaper, non-conductive material, for the purposes of reducing the material cost of the connector.
Regarding claim 10, Ito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose the specific contact arm shape recited by instant claim 10. While Ito discloses contact arms which are essentially solid bars, those of ordinary skill would recognize that the specific shape of the contact arms may be modified without removing the electrical connection between the contact arms and the ground terminals. Indeed, altering the shape of the contact arms may allow the contact arms to retain their function while using substantially less material, thereby reducing the material cost of the connector.
The courts have previously held that a particular configuration or shape of a claimed element is a matter of obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B) discussing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). Here, there is no evidence that the claimed configuration is significant. Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Ito to utilize the configuration recited by instant claim 10 because such a configuration would reducing the amount of material required to make and maintain an electrical connection between the subshield and the ground terminal, thereby reducing the material cost of the connector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, does not disclose the subject matter of claim 7, wherein the subshielding body further comprises an insertion portion adapted to be at least partially inserted into the insertion slot of claim 7 to fix the subshielding body relative to the installation base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights