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) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter US 5362249 in view of Swanger et al. US 20230046887.
Regarding claim 21, Carter discloses a process of connecting a shield contact system, comprising: providing a first shield (figs. 1-4; 10) having a first shield body (figs. 1-4; 14-16) and a protrusion (figs. 2-4; 18) extending from the first shield body (14-16); providing a second shield (figs. 5-8; 30) having a second shield body (body of 30) and a contact beam (figs. 5-8; 36) extending from the second shield body (body of 30); the contact beam (36) has a contact point (fig. 8; section of 36 contacting 10); and inserting the first shield (10) and the second shield (30) together along an insertion direction (fig. 8; horizontal direction) to a mated state (fig. 8), the contact beam (36) abuts the first shield body (16 of 14-16) in the mated state (fig. 8), the protrusion (18) deflects the contact beam (36) away from the first shield body (10) during insertion in a deflected state (Col 7 Ln 24-28; outward movement of 36 is the deflected state) prior to reaching the mated state (fig. 8).
Carter does not disclose during insertion, the contact point slides along the first shield body by a wiping distance to the mated state that is less than a distance between the contact point and a first leading edge of first shield body in the mated state.
However, Swanger teaches during insertion, the contact point (fig. 2; 156) slides along the first shield body (fig. 6; 300) by a wiping distance (see mark-up below from fig. 6; WD) to the mated state that is less than a distance (see mark-up #2 below from fig. 8; D) between the contact point (156) and a first leading edge (fig. 6; 312) of first shield body (300) in the mated state (fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
202
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mark-up Mark-up #2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate during insertion, the contact point slides along the first shield body by a wiping distance to the mated state that is less than a distance between the contact point and a first leading edge of first shield body in the mated state as suggested by Swanger for the benefit of providing improved protection of the contact point due to the shorter travel distance between two shielding bodies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest the contact beam has a pair of contact points, the protrusion passes between the contact points along the insertion direction from the deflected state to the mated state combined with the remaining limitations of the base claim.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest the contact beam has a pair of contact points; the protrusion passes between the contact points during insertion combined with the remaining limitations of the base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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