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 Objections
Claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 15, the phrase “removably insertable into and removable from” should read –removably insertable--. Claims 2-13 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. In claim 16 line 2, the word “PA66” should read –polyamide 66 (PA66)--. Claims 18-20 include all the limitations of claim 16 and are objected to for the same reasons. In claim 20 line 1, the word “STP” should read –shield twisted pair (STP)--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (2024/0322467) in view of Yun et al. (2023/0056932).
With regard to claim 1, Suzuki teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in paragraphs 45-46 and 56: “An electrical connector 10, comprising: a terminal module 18 and 19… the terminal module consisting of: at least one conductive terminal 18, and at least one insulator 19… wherein the at least one insulator 19 fully surrounds at least a portion of the at least one conductive terminal 18; a shielding housing 20 defining an accommodating cavity (where 19 is received in 20 in figure 6), wherein the terminal module… and a plastic housing 11 defining a matching channel 16, wherein the shielding housing 20”.
Suzuki does not specifically teach the terminal module “provided as a discrete subassembly prior to assembly with other components” or the terminal module formed when the insulator “is molded directly onto the at least one conductive terminal to form an integral unit”. However, Suzuki teaches the insulator being formed by molding (Suzuki, paragraph 56). 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 molding taught by Suzuki to mold the insulation on the conductive terminal in order to secure the conductive terminals to the insulation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Suzuki does not specifically teach the shielding housing “is removably insertable into and removable from the matching channel of the plastic housing independently of the terminal module, wherein the terminal module, shielding housing, and plastic housing define a hierarchical multi-stage assembly including a first removable interface between the terminal module and the shielding housing and a second removable interface between the shielding housing and the plastic housing”. However, 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 connector of Suzuki as having the shielding housing removably insertable into and removable from the matching channel of the plastic housing independently of the terminal module so the terminal module, shielding housing, and plastic housing define a hierarchical multi-stage assembly including a first removable interface between the terminal module and the shielding housing and a second removable interface between the shielding housing and the plastic housing, since this would merely be making the terminal module, shielding housing, and plastic housing as separate elements and would allow the separate elements to be replaced without replacing the whole connector. Changing the order of assembly of the separate components would still produce the same structure when complete and would therefore be an obvious modification.
Suzuki does not teach: “and wherein a first material of the at least one insulator is different from a second material of the plastic housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Yun teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “and wherein a first material of the at least one insulator 120 is different from a second material of the plastic housing 130”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 2, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “wherein the first material of the insulator 120 has a relative permittivity different from the second material of the plastic housing 130”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 7, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in paragraph 24: “wherein the terminal assembly is a shielded twisted pair (STP) terminal assembly configured to be connected with an STP cable 170”.
With regard to claim 8, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Suzuki nor Yun teaches: “wherein the at least one insulator comprises: a first insulator, the first insulator being positioned in a middle of the at least one conductive terminal; and a second insulator, the second insulator being positioned near an end of the at least one conductive terminal”. However, 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 insulator 19 of Suzuki as a first insulator (where 28 projects from 19 in figure 2) and a second insulator (where 29 projects from 19 in figure 2) in order to allow replacement of different sections more easily. Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With regard to claim 10, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in paragraph 56: “wherein the insulator 19 is molded on the at least one conductive terminal using an insert molding process”.
With regard to claim 11, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein a first mating structure (where 19 abuts 20 in figure 6) is formed on the insulator 19, and a second mating structure 21 is formed on an inner wall (where 20 abuts 19 in figure 6) of the shielding housing 20 for mating with the first mating structure”.
With regard to claim 12, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein a third mating structure 22A is formed on an outer wall of the shielding housing 20, and a fourth mating structure 34 is formed on an inner wall of the plastic housing 11 for mating with the third mating structure 22A”.
With regard to claim 13, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the electrical connector 10 is a board-end connector (mounted on board 50 in figure 10)”.
With regard to claim 14, Suzuki teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in paragraphs 45-46 and 56: “A method for manufacturing an electrical connector 10, comprising: forming a terminal module 18 and 19… including: molding at least one insulator… inserting the terminal module… into an accommodating cavity (where 19 is received in 20 in figure 6) of a shielding housing 20 such that the terminal module is… retained within the shielding housing 20… and inserting the shielding housing 20, with the terminal module retained therein, into a matching channel 16 of a plastic housing 11 such that the shielding housing is… retained within the plastic housing 11”.
Suzuki does not specifically teach the terminal module formed “as a discrete subassembly prior to assembly with other components” or the insulator molded “directly onto and around at least one conductive terminal such that the insulator and the at least one conductive terminal form an integral unitary structure”, the terminal module inserted “as a unitary structure”. However, Suzuki teaches the insulator being formed by molding (Suzuki, paragraph 56). 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 molding taught by Suzuki to mold the insulation on the conductive terminal in order to secure the conductive terminals to the insulation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Suzuki does not specifically teach the terminal module removably inserted in the shielding housing “without disassembly of the terminal module”, the shielding housing removably inserted in the plastic housing “independently of the terminal module, wherein the method defines a hierarchical multi-stage assembly including a first removable interface between the terminal module and the shielding housing and a second removable interface between the shielding housing and the plastic housing”. However, 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 connector of Suzuki as modified above so the terminal module removably inserted in the shielding housing without disassembly of the terminal module, since the modified terminal module is integral and the separate terminal module, shielding housing and the plastic housing being separate components inserted together, separately removably assembling the separate components independently would allow the removal and replacement of the terminal module, shield housing, or plastic housing without replacing the other components and would produce the same connector regardless of the order of assembly. Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Suzuki does not teach: “and wherein a first material of the at least one insulator of the terminal module is different from a second material of the plastic housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Yun teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “and wherein a first material of the at least one insulator 120 is different from a second material of the plastic housing 130”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 15, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The method of claim 14”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “wherein the first material of the insulator 120 has a relative permittivity different from the material of the plastic housing 130”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3, 5-6, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (2024/0322467) in view of Yun et al. (2023/0056932) and Bak et al. (2015/0258330).
With regard to claim 3, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “the first material 120 of the insulator has a relative permittivity lower than that of the” plastic 130. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Neither Suzuki nor Yun teach: “wherein the plastic housing is made of polyamide 66 (PA66) thermoplastic materials”. However, 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 a specific polymer such as polymide, since polymide is known for forming insulating materials on conductors (Bak, paragraph 41). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 5, Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 3”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “wherein the insulator 130 has a relative permittivity between 2.7 and 3.3 (paragraph 18 teaches a relative permeability overlapping this range)”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 6, Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 3”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 17-19: “wherein the relative permittivity of the insulator is about 3.0 (paragraph 18 teaches a relative permeability of up to about 3.0)”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 16, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The method of claim 14”.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “and the first material of the insulator has a relative permittivity lower than that of” the plastic 130.
Neither Suzuki nor Yun teach: “wherein the plastic housing is made of PA66 thermoplastic materials”. However, 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 a specific polymer such as polymide, since polymide is known for forming insulating materials on conductors (Bak, paragraph 41). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 18, Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak teaches: “The method of claim 16”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 2-3 and 17-19: “wherein the insulator 130 has a relative permittivity between 2.7 and 3.3 (paragraph 18 teaches a relative permeability overlapping this range)”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 19, Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 16”, as shown above.
Yun also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraphs 17-19: “wherein the relative permittivity of the insulator is about 3.0 (paragraph 18 teaches a relative permeability of up to about 3.0)”. 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 the features of Yun with the invention of Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Yun, paragraph 3). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 20, Suzuki as modified by Yun and Bak teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 16”, as shown above.
Suzuki also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in paragraph 24: “wherein the terminal assembly is an STP terminal assembly configured to be connected with a STP cable 170”.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (2024/0322467) in view of Yun et al. (2023/0056932) and Clark (4,984,359).
With regard to claim 4, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Suzuki nor Yun teach: “wherein the first material of the insulator is a liquid crystal polymer (LCP)”. However, 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 a specific polymer such as liquid crystal polymer, since liquid crystal polymer is a well-known insulating material (Clark, column 6 lines 61-64). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 17, Suzuki as modified by Yun teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 14”, as shown above.
Neither Suzuki nor Yun teach: “wherein the first material of the insulator is a liquid crystal polymer (LCP)”. However, 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 a specific polymer such as liquid crystal polymer, since liquid crystal polymer is a well-known insulating material (Clark, column 6 lines 61-64). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1 and 14, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the terminal module being integrally molded as the terminals and insulator. The Examiner disagrees, since the primary reference Suzuki teaches a molded insulator and a terminal and integrally molding the terminal and housing is an obvious modification. It is also well known in the art to form terminal modules by molding an insulator around one or more terminals. The Applicant further argues that neither the terminal module and the shielding housing nor the shielding housing and the plastic housing have removable interfaces allowing hierarchical removability. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since even though the primary reference does not specify the hierarchical removability, this is also an obvious modification to make and the same structure will be assembled no matter if the shield housing is inserted in the plastic housing first or if the terminal module is inserted into the shielding housing first. The Applicant further argues that Suzuki teaches an integral structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Suzuki does not teach that the connector is formed integrally, but assembled from the various parts thereof.
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 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
Prosecution Insights