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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the bottom” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-20 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
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.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloey et al. (US 2011/0255252 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2016/0233594 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sloey discloses a card tray assembly (ejectable component assembly 16; see Figs. 1 and 4-13), wherein
the card tray assembly (16) comprises a circuit board (circuit board 50), a card tray holder (guide 60), a card tray (tray 20), and a cover (cage 40); wherein
the card tray holder (60) is connected to the circuit board (50; see paragraph 0062 and Figs. 4-10), and a channel for connecting the card tray (20) is formed between the card tray holder (60) and the circuit board (50; see Fig. 7);
the card tray (20) is disposed in the channel (see Fig. 7) and able to slide along the channel to switch between a pop-up state and a mounted state (see Figs. 1 and 4-7); and
the cover (40) is connected to the circuit board (50; see paragraph 0058 and Figs. 4-6 and 10-11), and an accommodating cavity is formed between the cover (40) and the circuit board (50; see paragraph 0057 and Figs. 4-6 and 10-11), the accommodating cavity being opposite the channel (see Figs. 4-5); wherein
in a case that the card tray (20) is in the mounted state, a bottom of the card tray (20) is embedded in the accommodating cavity (see Figs. 5-6 and 10-11).
Sloey does not explicitly state that its cage is waterproof. However, Sloey discloses that its cage may be formed from materials impermeable to water, such as metal, and that it may have a length allowing it to extend over the entirety of the tray when the tray is fully inserted (see paragraph 0058).
Zhao discloses a waterproof connector assembly (100) having a metallic shield (5) and an insulative cover (6). A sealing member (7) is attached to a rear end of the connector assembly (see Figs. 2 and 7-8) to seals gaps and create a waterproof accommodating cavity (see Abstract).
Zhao is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of waterproofing electrical components. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the assembly taught by Sloey by extending its cage so that it covers the entirety of the tray when fully inserted, and sealing the back cage end 43 to create a waterproof accommodating cavity. Doing so would prevent the ingress of water into the device.
Regarding claim 2, Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao further teaches the card tray assembly according to claim 1, wherein the waterproof cover (Sloey: 40) is soldered to the circuit board (Sloey: 50; see paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao further teaches the card tray assembly according to claim 2, wherein the waterproof cover (Sloey: 40) is provided with skirts (Sloey: sidewalls 44 and/or cage coupling elements 45), and the skirts (Sloey: 44 and/or 45) are soldered to the circuit board (Sloey: 50; see paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 4, Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao further teaches the card tray assembly according to claim 3, wherein an end face of the waterproof cover (Zhao: as modified, sealing member 7 would be an end face of the waterproof cover) is flush with an end face of the circuit board (Zhao: see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao further teaches the card tray assembly according to claim 2, wherein an end face of the circuit board extends beyond an end face of the waterproof cover, so that a preset distance is present between the end face of the circuit board and the end face of the waterproof cover (Sloey: see Figs. 4-6 and 13 showing end faces of circuit board 50 extending beyond end faces of cage 50; even when cage 50 is extended to cover the entirety of tray 20, back cage end 43 would not extend to the end face of circuit board 50 and a distance between the two would be present).
Regarding claim 7, Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao further teaches the card tray assembly according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board (Sloey: 50) comprises at least one of a printed circuit board or a flexible printed circuit board (Sloey: see paragraph 0061).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloey in view of Zhao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zuehlsdorf et al. (US 2007/0094977 A1).
Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao fails to teach that corners of the skirts are provided with process openings.
Zuehlsdorf teaches providing process openings (“carrying corners”) on corners of a metallic cover (cover 232; see paragraph 0067 and Figs. 3 and 6).
Zuehlsdorf is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of manufacturing metal covers with sidewalls or skirts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application to provide process openings on corners of the skirts. Doing so would permit the cover to be formed through a progressive die stamping process (Zuehlsdorf: see paragraph 0067).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloey in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Germani (US 2017/0033497 A1).
Sloey in view of Zhao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sloey in view of Zhao lacks a specific teaching that an anti-rust coating is provided on a surface of the waterproof cover.
Germani teaches coating a metal connector housing (metal shell 2) in a protective coating resistant to corrosion and erosion (7).
Germani is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of avoiding metal corrosion. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the assembly taught by Sloey in view of Zhao by providing an anti-rust coating on a surface of the waterproof cover. One would be motivated to do so in order to prevent the waterproof cover from rusting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 9, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a first waterproof member disposed around two sides of a card tray holder and connected to a waterproof cover, and the first waterproof member hermetically connects the waterproof cover and a housing and hermetically connects one side of a circuit board and the housing.
Claims 10-20 depend, either directly or indirectly, on claim 9 and would be allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights