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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimori et al. (2016/0315425).
With regard to claim 1, Nishimori teaches, as shown in figures 1-13 and taught in paragraph 58: “A board connector 1 to be mounted on a circuit board 81 that is accommodated inside an enclosure 89, comprising: a housing 23 including a receptacle 26 open forward and a rear wall (right wall of 5 in figure 8) provided on a side opposite to a front end part where the receptacle 26 is open; an outer conductor 7 fixed to the housing 23 through the rear wall; an insulating dielectric 27 disposed inside the outer conductor 7; an inner conductor 9 disposed inside the dielectric 27; and a ground spring 41 and 43 to be connected to the outer conductor 7, the receptacle 26 including a first wall (top wall of 5 in figure 8) to be disposed on a side opposite to the circuit board 81, a second wall (bottom wall of 5 in figure 8) to be disposed on the circuit board 81 side and a third wall (left wall of 5 in figure 7) coupling the first wall and the second wall, and the ground spring including a first enclosure connecting portion 43 disposed on an outer surface side of the first wall and to be electrically connected to the enclosure 89 and a second enclosure connecting portion 41 disposed on an outer surface side of each or either one of the second wall and the third wall”.
Nishimori does not teach the second enclosure portion “to be electrically connected to the enclosure”. 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 duplicate the first enclosure portion and the ground terminal of the unit housing in order to form another connection between the outer conductor and the ground of the unit housing. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regard to claim 6, Hirokawa teaches: “…the board connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Hirokawa also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13 and taught in paragraph 71: “A device 89, comprising… a circuit board 81 having the board connector 1 mounted thereon; and an enclosure 89… the circuit board 81 being accommodated inside the enclosure 89, the enclosure 89 being electrically connected to the outer conductor 7 via the ground spring 43, the enclosure 89 including a first spring receiving portion to be connected to the first enclosure connecting portion 43”.
Hirokawa does not specifically teach the enclosure “made of metal”. However, paragraph 71 of Hirokawa teaches the enclosure being grounded. 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 enclose out of metal in order to form a conductive connection with the ground. 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.
Hirokawa also does not teach: “and a second spring receiving portion to be connected to the second enclosure connecting portion”. 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 duplicate the first enclosure connecting portion and first spring receiving portion in order to provide more grounding. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimori et al. (2016/0315425) in view of Ishikawa et al. (2017/0324176).
With regard to claim 2, Nishimori teaches: “The board connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Nishimori does not teach: “wherein the ground spring includes a mounting body portion to be disposed along an outer surface of the rear wall, the first enclosure connecting portion includes a plurality of first connection springs projecting forward from a front edge of the mounting body portion, and the second enclosure connecting portion includes a plurality of second connection springs projecting forward from the front edge of the mounting body portion”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ishikawa teaches, as shown in figures 1-3: “wherein the ground spring 50 includes a mounting body portion 51 to be disposed along an outer surface of the rear wall (right wall in figure 3), the first enclosure connecting portion 56 includes a plurality of first connection springs 56 projecting forward from a front edge of the mounting body portion 51, and the second enclosure connecting portion (left 56 in figure 3) includes a plurality of second connection springs 56 projecting forward from the front edge of the mounting body portion 51”. 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 Ishikawa with the invention of Nishimori in order to fix the ground spring to the housing (Ishikawa, paragraph 25).
With regard to claim 3, Nishimori as modified by Ishikawa teaches: “The board connector of claim 2”, as shown above.
Ishikawa also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3: “wherein the mounting body portion 51 has a rectangular tube shape and includes a first mounting wall (right wall of 51 in figure 3) corresponding to the first wall (right 23 in figure 3), a second mounting wall (left wall of 51 in figure 3) corresponding to the second wall (left 23 in figure 3) and third mounting walls 71 corresponding to the third wall 22, a pair of the third mounting walls 71 are provided to face each other in a direction orthogonal to a facing direction (left-right direction in figure 3) of the first mounting wall and the second mounting wall, and the second enclosure connecting portions 56 are disposed on both the second mounting wall and the pair of third mounting walls 71”. 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 Ishikawa with the invention of Nishimori as modified by Ishikawa in order to fix the ground spring to the housing (Ishikawa, paragraph 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited reference Nishimori does not teach “a second enclosure connecting portion disposed on an outer surface side of each or either one of the second wall and the third wall and to be electrically connected to the enclosure”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since this is an obvious modification of Nishimori. Further, the use of grounded enclosure connecting portions connecting to enclosures on multiple sides of an outer conductor is well-known in the art (see for example, Yang (2021/0028580) as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraph 26, grounded enclosure connecting portions 141 connecting to a casing on multiple sides of the outer conductor 11.
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