DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 12/27/2023.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 21183413.0, filed on 07/02/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3 – 5, 8, 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4 – 5, recite “to an antenna (10, 11) disposed on a thin support (12)”, it should be amended to “to an antenna
Claim 3, line 2, recites “wherein the at least one leg of the pin part comrises at least…”. It should be amended to “wherein the at least one leg of the pin part comprises at least…”. It appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “wherein the pin part comprise two legs separated by the bridge”. It should be amended to “wherein the pin part comprises two legs separated by the bridge”. It appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 5, line 1, recites “The electrical connector according claim 1…”. It should be amended to “The electrical connector according to claim 1…”. It appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 8, line 12, recites “the pin between the bridge of pin part and the antenna and electrically connect the pin to the antenna”. It should be amended to “the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna and electrically connecting the pin to the antenna”. It appears to be a typographical error. The Examiner kindly reminds applicant that whenever a structure is referenced in the claims, it must be preceding the term “the” to avoid any interpretation issues.
Claim 8, line 13, recites “the pin part being electrically isolated from the shield part the pin part being electrically isolated from the shield part”. It should be amended to “the pin part being electrically isolated from the shield part
Claim 11, line 26, recites “STOP”. It should be amended to “.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1 – 7 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, line 3, recites “the coaxial cable comprising a pin and a…”, but it was not positively recited in the claim, therefore it lacks antecedent basis. This portion of the claim is indefinite because the claimed function is recited without positively claiming the structure necessary to perform the function. The Examiner notes that in the claim’s preamble, “a coaxial cable” is recited as part of a functional limitation. The Examiner suggests to clarify whether the coaxial cable is being claimed, as the claim does not positively recite the coaxial cable as a structural limitation, only as a functional limitation. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the coaxial cable” as being positively claimed as a structure in the claim.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “wherein the shield part comprises two legs separated by the bridge”. It is unclear as to which “bridge” the Applicant refers to in the claim. In claim 1, there are multiple bridges recited (i.e. bridge of the shield part and bridge of the pin part), and it is unclear whether the “bridge” in claim 2 refers to either the “bridge of the shield part” or the “bridge of the pin part”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret it as being “the bridge of the shield part”.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “wherein the pin part comprise two legs separated by the bridge”. It is unclear as to which “bridge” the Applicant refers to in the claim. In claim 1, there are multiple bridges recited (i.e. bridge of the shield part and bridge of the pin part), and it is unclear whether the “bridge” in claim 4 refers to either the “bridge of the shield part” or the “bridge of the pin part”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret it as being “the bridge of the pin part”.
Claim 6, line 2, recites “wherein the pin part’s penetration means comprises at least a tine”. The term “pin part’s penetration means” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and nowhere in claim 1 “a pin part penetration means” is recited. The Examiner notes that claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one leg of the pin part comrises at least a pin part’s penetration means”, but since claim 6 depends on claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for the term “pin part’s penetration means”. The Examiner suggests Applicant to change the claim dependency to claim 3 to solve the lack of antecedent basis issue. The Examiner will interpret claim 6 as being dependent on claim 3 so that the term “pin part’s penetration means” has antecedent basis.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 recite the limitations “shield part’s penetration means” and “pin part’s penetration means” using the term “means” and reciting only the function of “penetrating through the thin support”, it does not recite sufficient structure for performing that function in the claims themselves. Although the dependent claims 5 and 6 recite that “the shield part’s penetration means comprises at least a tine” and “the pin part’s penetration means comprises at least a tine” respectively, the dependent claims cannot supply structure to rebut the §112(f) presumption for the independent claims. Accordingly, the limitation of the independent claims “shield part’s penetration means” and “pin part’s penetration means” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the penetration function.
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, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) an electrical connector (52) for electrically connecting a coaxial cable (38) to an antenna (80; ¶0022) disposed on a thin support (50), the coaxial cable (38) comprising a pin (28) and a shield (46) separated by a dielectric element (44) and protected by an insulated layer (48), to an antenna (80; ¶0022) disposed on a thin support (50), the electrical connector comprising:
- a shield part (56) comprising at least one leg (72) and a bridge (66, 68) to clamp the shield (46) between the bridge (66, 68) of the shield part (56) and the antenna (80; ¶0022) and to electrically connect the shield (46) to the antenna (80; ¶0022); and
-a pin part (54) comprising at least one leg (62) and a bridge (58) to clamp the pin (28) between the bridge of pin part (58) and the antenna (see figure 10, the shield is clamped between the top portions of 58 and the antenna layer 80) and to electrically connect the pin (28) to the antenna (¶0038), the pin part (54) being electrically isolated from the shield part (56),
wherein the at least one leg of the shield part (72) comprises at least a shield part's penetration means (60) designed to penetrate through the thin support (50), and wherein the at least a shield part's penetration means (60) and the at least one leg of the shield part (72) are not coplanar (see figure 7B).
Regarding claim 3, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the at least one leg of the pin part (62) comprises at least a pin part's penetration means (60) designed to penetrate through the thin support (50).
Regarding claim 5, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according claim 1, wherein the shield part's penetration means (60 in figure 7B) comprises at least a tine (¶0030).
Regarding claim 6, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the pin part's penetration means (60 in figure 7A) comprises at least a tine (¶0031).
Regarding claim 8, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) an antenna system (see figure 10) comprising a thin support (50), an antenna (80; ¶0022) disposed on the thin support (50), a coaxial cable (38) which comprises a pin (28) and a shield (46) separated by a dielectric element (44) and protected by an insulated layer (48), and an electrical connector (52), the electrical connector comprising:
a shield part (56) comprising at least one leg (72) and a bridge (66, 68) clamping the shield (46) between the bridge of the shield part (66, 68) and the antenna (80; ¶0022) to electrically connect the shield (46) to the antenna (80; ¶0022),
a pin part (54) comprising at least a leg (62) and a bridge (58) clamping the pin between the bridge of pin part and the antenna (see figure 10, the shield is clamped between the top portions of 58 and the antenna layer 80) and electrically connect the pin (28) to the antenna (¶0038), the pin part (54) being electrically isolated from the shield part (56), the pin part (54) being electrically isolated from the shield part (56),
wherein at least one leg of the shield part (72) comprises at least a shield part's penetration means (60) penetrating through the thin support (50); and
wherein the at least a shield part's penetration means (60) and the at least one leg of the shield part (72) are not coplanar (see figures 7B and 10; ¶0038).
Regarding claim 9, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the antenna system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one leg of the pin part (62) comprises at least a pin part's penetration means (60) penetrating through the thin support (50).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023) in view of Chen (CN 203386920, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023).
Regarding claim 7, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according to claim 1.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical connector further comprises a maintain means to maintain together the shield part and the pin part.
Chen teaches (figures 1 and 2) a connector wherein the electrical connector (see figure 2) further comprises a maintain means (40) to maintain together the shield part (12) and the pin part (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by Chen to provide a maintain means to maintain together the shield part and the pin part, in order to preserve electrical performance and structural integrity.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) a vehicle (¶0022) comprising a least one antenna system (see figure 10) according to claim 8.
Although Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the antenna system in Bulgajewski into a vehicle, because vehicles are well-known platforms for mobile electronics and navigation systems requiring wireless communication. The antenna system disclosed in Bulgajewski is expressly configured for mobile devices, such as phones, computer, and navigation devices (¶0022), all which are commonly integrated into vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that vehicles routinely house mobile communication and navigation electronics and would have been motivated to incorporate the known antenna system in a vehicle to enable the same wireless functions.
Claim(s) 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023) in view of Martin (US 8932078).
Regarding claim 11, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) a method for connecting a coaxial cable (38), the coaxial cable comprising a pin (28) and a shield (46) separated by a dielectric element (44) and protected by an insulated layer (48), to an antenna (80) disposed on a thin support (50) with an electrical connector (52), the electrical connector comprising:
a shield part (56) comprising at least one leg (72) and a bridge (66, 68) clamping the shield (46) between the bridge of the shield part (66, 68) and the antenna (80; ¶0022) to electrically connect the shield (46) to the antenna (80; ¶0022),
a pin part (54) comprising at least a leg (62) and a bridge (58) clamping the pin between the bridge of pin part and the antenna (see figure 10, the shield is clamped between the top portions of 58 and the antenna layer 80) and electrically connect the pin (28) to the antenna (¶0038), the pin part (54) being electrically isolated from the shield part (56),
wherein at least one leg of the shield part (72) comprises at least a shield part's penetration means (60) designed to penetrate through the thin support (50);
wherein the at least a shield part's penetration means (60) and the at least one leg of the shield part (72) are not coplanar (see figures 7B and 10; ¶0038), and the method comprising:
A) positioning the coaxial cable over the antenna (¶0038)
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose pressing the at least a shield part's penetration means through the thin support to clamp the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna.
Martin teaches (figures 8A – 10) a method wherein pressing the at least a shield part's penetration means (528) through the thin support (540) to clamp the shield (520) between the bridge of the shield part (i.e. see bridge where 528 is bending from in figure 8A) and the antenna (i.e. column 1, lines 23 – 42) to electrically connect the shield to the antenna (i.e. column 8, lines 48 – 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by Martin to provide the method of pressing the at least a shield part's penetration means through the thin support to clamp the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this technique directly addresses common design concerns, such as maintaining consistent electrical grounding.
Regarding claim 12, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the method according to claim 11.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose further comprising bending a part of the shield part's penetration means that passed through the thin support on a surface opposite to a surface of penetration of the thin support.
Martin teaches (figures 8A – 10) a method further comprising bending a part of the shield part's penetration means (524, 528; column 8, lines 48 – 67) that passed through the thin support (540) on a surface opposite to a surface of penetration (surface of 540; column 8, lines 48 – 67) of the thin support (540).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by Martin to provide the method further comprising bending a part of the shield part's penetration means that passed through the thin support on a surface opposite to a surface of penetration of the thin support, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this technique directly addresses common design concerns, such as maintaining consistent electrical grounding.
Regarding claim 13, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the method according to claim 12 wherein at least one leg of the pin part (62) comprises at least a pin part's penetration means (60 in figure 7A) penetrating through the thin support (50).
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising pressing the at least the pin part's penetration means through the thin support to clamp the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna to electrically connect the pin to the antenna.
Martin teaches (figures 8A – 10) a method further comprising pressing the at least the pin part's penetration means (see second 528 near the pin of the connector) through the thin support (540) to clamp the pin (512; the pin is also inside 526) between the bridge of the pin part (see bridge where 528 is bending from in figure 8A) and the antenna (i.e. column 1, lines 23 – 42) to electrically connect the pin to the antenna (i.e. column 8, lines 48 – 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by Martin to provide the method further comprising pressing the at least the pin part's penetration means through the thin support to clamp the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna to electrically connect the pin to the antenna, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this technique directly addresses common design concerns, such as maintaining consistent electrical grounding.
Regarding claim 14, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the method according to claim 13.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose further comprising bending a part of the pin part's penetration means that passed through the thin support on the surface opposite to the surface of penetration of the thin support.
Martin teaches (figures 8A – 10) a method further comprising bending a part of the pin part's penetration means (524, second 528 near the pin; column 8, lines 48 – 67) that passed through the thin support (540) on the surface opposite to the surface of penetration (surface of 540; column 8, lines 48 – 67) of the thin support (540).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by Martin to provide the method further comprising bending a part of the pin part's penetration means that passed through the thin support on the surface opposite to the surface of penetration of the thin support, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this technique directly addresses common design concerns, such as maintaining consistent electrical grounding.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023) in view of Martin (US 8932078) and further in view of Watkins (US 20190341705).
Regarding claim 15, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector (52) and the antenna (80; ¶0022) of the method according to claim 12.
But Bulgajewski and Martin do not explicitly disclose further comprising overmolding at least the electrical connector over the antenna.
Watkins teaches (figure 2B) a connector further comprising overmolding (¶0028, ¶0033) at least the electrical connector over the antenna (i.e. 171 is overmolded over 173c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the overmolding step taught in Watkins into the connector of Bulgajewski, as overmolding is a well-known technique for securing and protecting coaxial connector components.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023) in view of An (US 20110148734, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according to claim 1.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose wherein the shield part comprises two legs separated by the bridge.
An teaches (figures 2 – 7) a connector wherein the shield part (300) comprises two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by An to provide the shield part comprising two legs separated by the bridge, in order to reduce the material cost during the fabrication process, as there is a reduction in the number of components used (see ¶0068).
Regarding claim 4, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the electrical connector according to claim 1.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose wherein the pin part comprise two legs separated by the bridge.
Ann teaches (figures 2 – 7) a connector wherein the pin part (see second 300) comprise two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by An to provide the pin part comprising two legs separated by the bridge, in order to reduce the material cost during the fabrication process, as there is a reduction in the number of components used (see ¶0068).
Regarding claim 16, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the antenna system according to claim 8.
But Bulgajewski does not explicitly disclose wherein the shield part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna, and wherein the pin part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna to electrically connect the pin to the antenna.
An teaches (figures 2 – 7) a connector wherein the shield part (300) comprises two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360) clamping the shield (420) between the bridge of the shield part (bridge of 300) and the antenna (¶0042) to electrically connect the shield (420) to the antenna (¶0064 - ¶0067), and wherein the pin part (see second 300) comprises two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360) clamping the pin (450) between the bridge of the pin part (i.e. bridge of second 300) and the antenna (¶0042) to electrically connect the pin (450) to the antenna (i.e. ¶0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski with the connector as disclosed by An to provide two legs separated by the bridge clamping the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna, and wherein the pin part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna to electrically connect the pin to the antenna, as there is a reduction in the number of components used (see ¶0068).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulgajewski (US 20200335884, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023) in view of Martin (US 8932078) and further in view of An (US 20110148734, cited in the IDS on 12/27/2023).
Regarding claim 17, Bulgajewski teaches (figures 3 – 10) the method according to claim 11.
But Bulgajewski and Martin do not explicitly disclose wherein the shield part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna, and wherein the pin part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna and electrically connect the pin to the antenna.
An teaches (figures 3 – 10) a connector wherein the shield part (300) comprises two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360) clamping the shield (420) between the bridge of the shield part (bridge of 300) and the antenna (¶0042) to electrically connect the shield (420) to the antenna (¶0064 - ¶0067), and wherein the pin part (see second 300) comprises two legs (see figures 4 – 6) separated by the bridge (360) clamping the pin (450) between the bridge of the pin part (i.e. bridge of second 300) and the antenna (¶0042) and electrically connect the pin (450) to the antenna (i.e. ¶0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bulgajewski and Martin with the connector as disclosed by An to provide two legs separated by the bridge clamping the shield between the bridge of the shield part and the antenna to electrically connect the shield to the antenna, and wherein the pin part comprises two legs separated by the bridge clamping the pin between the bridge of the pin part and the antenna to electrically connect the pin to the antenna, as there is a reduction in the number of components used (see ¶0068).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834