CTNF 18/533,411 CTNF 91750 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: -- ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR WITH DIFFERENT INSULATING MATERIALS SURROUNDING A SHELL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME --. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 7 and 20 lines 1-2, the phrases “STP” and “shielded twisted pair (STP)” should be swapped . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 assembly 18, 19, and 20 consisting of a terminal module 18 and 19 and a shielding housing 20, the terminal module comprising at least one conductive terminal 18 and at least one insulator 19, wherein the at least one insulator 19 is molded… and wraps around the at least one conductive terminal 18, wherein the shielding housing 20 defines an accommodating cavity 21, wherein the terminal module is removably secured within the accommodating cavity 21; and a plastic housing 11 defining a matching channel 16, wherein the shielding housing 20 is removably secured within the matching channel 16”. Suzuki does not specifically teach the at least one insulator molded “on 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 use the molding taught by Suzuki to mold the insulation on the conductive terminal in order to secure the conductive terminals to the insulation. 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 an STP terminal assembly configured to be connected with a shielded twisted pair (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 9, 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 3: “wherein the at least one conductive terminal 18 is a signal terminal for transmitting data signal”. 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 through 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 at least one insulator 19 on at least one conductive terminal 18 through a molding process, wherein the at least one insulator 19 wraps around the at least one conductive terminal; assembling the at least one insulator 19 along with the at least one conductive terminal 18 into an accommodating cavity 21 of a shielding housing 20 to form a terminal assembly 18, 19, and 20; and assembling the shielding housing 20 along with the at least one insulator 19 as well as the at least one conductive terminal 18 into a matching channel of a plastic housing 11. Suzuki does not teach: “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 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 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 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 shielded twisted pair (STP) cable 170” . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 2 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 3 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 4 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 5 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 6 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 7 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 8 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 9 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 10 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 11 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/533,411 Page 12 Art Unit: 2831