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 § 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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111987503 in view of Natori et al. US 6,315,621.
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘503 discloses a connector for high-speed transmission configured to connect a first circuit board and a second circuit board and to be disposed between the first circuit board and the second circuit board, comprising: a first contact (fig. 1; one 2) and a second contract (fig. 1; adjacent 2) arranged in a row (fig. 1; row of 2s) with a predetermined pitch (fig. 2; space between 213 of each 2 in the y direction); and an insulating housing (fig. 2; 1) having a first contact accommodation part (fig. 2; 13) and a second contact accommodation part (13) that respectively hold the first (one 2) and second contacts (adjacent 2), wherein each contact includes a fixed part (fig. 2; 22), an elastically deformable part (fig. 2; 21) and a contact part (fig. 2; 213), the elastically deformable part (21) having two spring pieces (fig. 2; 2121) extending apart from each other in a pitch direction (y direction) and parallel to each other and whose both ends (ends of 2121) are joined, and the contact part (213) being supported by the elastically deformable part (21), no conductor exists between the two spring pieces (2121) of each contact (2), no conductor exists between the first and second contacts (2) adjacent in the pitch direction (y-direction), and a gap (see mark-up below from fig. 5; G1) in the pitch direction (y direction) between the two spring pieces (2121) of each contact is greater than a gap (mark-up; G2) in the pitch direction (y direction) between the spring piece (2121) of the first contact (one 2) that is located closer to the second contact (adjacent 2) and the spring piece (2121) of the second contact (adjacent 2) that is located closer to the first contact (one 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
CN ‘503 does not disclose the fixed part being press-fit into the corresponding contact accommodation part, and wherein the two spring pieces are accommodated in the corresponding contact accommodation part before and during connection between the first and second circuit boards.
However, Natori teaches the fixed part (fig. 5; 53) being press-fit (Col 5 Ln 57-59; the fixing portion 53 of the contact element 51 is press-fitted into a vertical wall 231) into the corresponding contact accommodation part (fig. 9; 233), and wherein the two spring pieces (fig. 5; 81, 83) are accommodated in the corresponding contact accommodation part (233) before and during connection between the first and second mating parts (fig. 9; 401, 501).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fixed part being press-fit into the corresponding contact accommodation part, and wherein the two spring pieces are accommodated in the corresponding contact accommodation part before and during connection between the first and second circuit boards as suggested by Natori for the benefit of providing an optimized compact electrical board connector that is highly capable of transmitting complex high frequency signals.
Regarding claim 3, CN ‘503 modified by Natori has been disclosed above. CN ‘503 discloses wherein cross-sectional areas and cross-sectional shapes of the two spring pieces (2121) are equal to each other (2121 is identical, so cross-sectional shapes and areas will be the same).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘503 discloses wherein the two spring pieces (2121) are a cantilever beam (they are elastic).
CN ‘503 does not disclose the cantilever beam being partially bent in a U-shape.
However, Natori teaches the cantilever beam (fig. 5; 55, 57) being partially bent in a U-shape or V-shape (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cantilever beam being partially bent in a U-shape as suggested by Natori for the benefit of providing improved flexibility of a contact in order to expand the life span of said contact.
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘503 modified by Natori has been disclosed above. CN ‘503 discloses wherein each contact (2) is formed symmetrically with respect to a center line (fig. 4; a centerline in the z direction would be the line of symmetry).
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘503 discloses wherein each contact (2) includes a welding part (fig. 1; 216) at an end (bottom) on an opposite side of the contact part (213).
CN ‘503 does not explicitly disclose a soldering part.
However, Natori teaches a soldering part (fig. 5; 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a soldering part as suggested by Natori for the benefit of effectively lowering production cost by having less complicated methods of joining metals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Attorney stated, “the limitation "a gap in the pitch direction between the two spring pieces of each contact is greater than a gap in the pitch direction between the spring piece of the first contact that is located closer to the second contact and the spring piece of the second contact that is located closer to the first contact" is not taught by CN111987503. According to established case law, patent drawings are generally not drawn to scale, and dimensional limitations cannot be derived from drawings alone.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yes, attorney is correct in mentioning that drawings cannot be cited to disclose precise dimensions when the drawings are not drawn to scale. However, claim 8 fails to recite any specific numerical measurements or dimensions of the various gaps between the spring pieces of the contacts. The claim just recites “greater than” to compare two different gap sizes of the contacts; and since explicit dimensions are not claimed, the examiner is not at fault for using the drawings of CN ‘503 to disclose the claimed gaps of the contacts.
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 MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights