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 .
The previous Non-final Office Action has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The limitation “the cantilevered blade beam is configured to bend as the pair of contact beams contact and slide along the opposing surfaces of the cantilevered blade beam.” is unclear.
The examiner interprets as “the cantilevered blade beam is configured to bend the pair contact beams as the pair of contact beams contact and slide along the opposing surfaces of the cantilevered blade beam.”
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.
Claims 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Antonini (WO 2019/217521).
Regarding claim 15, Antonini discloses a board-to-board array connector (Fig. 22), comprising:
a receptacle assembly (110), the receptacle assembly comprising a receptacle housing (111) and a plurality of receptacle interface assemblies (155, Fig. 21), and
a plug assembly (11), the plug assembly comprising a plug housing (12) and a plurality of plug interface assemblies (55), a plug interface assembly among the plurality of plug interface assemblies comprising a plug contact blade having a cantilevered blade beam (45), wherein:
[AltContent: ]a receptacle interface assembly among the plurality of receptacle interface assemblies comprising a receptacle shield body (131) having a compliant extension contact comprises a cantilevered shield arm (136).
[AltContent: textbox (Shield clearance area)][AltContent: textbox (Shield paddle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Compliant arm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mount end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Compliant extension contact)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
792
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Antonini discloses the cantilevered shield arm is cantilevered toward a contact end of the receptacle shield body and extends toward a mount end of the receptacle shield body.
Regarding claim 17, Antonini discloses the cantilevered shield arm comprises a compliant arm and a shield paddle.
Regarding claim 18, Antonini discloses the shield paddle is separated from the receptacle shield body by a shield clearance area.
Regarding claim 19, Antonini discloses the shield paddle is configured to bend from a position further toward a center of the receptacle shield body to a position further away from the center of the receptacle shield body.
Regarding claim 21, Antonini discloses the receptacle shield body comprises an electrically-conductive, metallic material.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonini (WO 2019/217521) in view of Sochor (US 4,140,361).
Regarding claim 1, Antonini discloses a board-to-board array connector (Fig. 22), comprising:
a receptacle assembly (110), the receptacle assembly comprising a receptacle housing (111) and a plurality of receptacle interface assemblies (155, Fig. 21), a receptacle interface assembly among the plurality of receptacle interface assemblies comprising a receptacle contact (145), and
a plug assembly (11), the plug assembly comprising a plug housing (12) and a plurality of plug interface assemblies (55), a plug interface assembly among the plurality of plug interface assemblies comprising a plug contact blade having a cantilevered blade beam (45).
Anotonini substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the receptacle contact comprising a pair of contact beams contacts opposing surface of the cantilever blade beam.
Sochor teaches a receptacle contact (53) comprising a pair of contact beams (55) contacts opposing surface of the cantilever blade beam (54) (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a pair of contact beams into Antonini’s receptacle contact, as taught by Sochor for increasing contact force.
Regarding claim 2, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini in view of Sochor discloses the cantilevered blade beam of the plug contact blade is centrally positioned within the plug contact blade.
Regarding claim 3, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini in view of Sochor discloses the cantilevered blade beam of the plug contact blade is cantilevered toward a contact blade end of the cantilevered blade beam and extends toward a mount end of the cantilevered blade beam.
Regarding claim 6, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini in view of Sochor discloses disclose the cantilevered blade beam is configured to bend the pair of contact beams as the pair of contact beams contact and slide along the opposing surfaces of the cantilevered blade beam.
Regarding claim 7, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the receptacle interface assembly among the plurality of receptacle interface assemblies comprises (Fig. 19):
a receptacle shield body (131); and
a receptacle body insulator (155),
wherein the receptacle body insulator electrically isolates the receptacle contact from the receptacle shield body.
Regarding claim 8, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the receptacle body insulator comprises chamfered corners.
[AltContent: textbox (Chamfer corner)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
297
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the plug interface assembly among the plurality of plug interface assemblies comprises (Fig. 8):
a plug shield body (31); and
a plug body insulator (55),
wherein the plug body insulator electrically isolates the plug contact from the plug shield body.
Regarding claim 10, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the receptacle interface assembly among the plurality of receptacle interface assemblies further comprises a receptacle shield body (131), the receptacle shield body comprises a plurality of compliant extension contacts (136) at a contact end of the receptacle shield body, and a compliant extension contact among the plurality of compliant extension contacts comprises a cantilevered shield arm (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 11, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the cantilevered shield arm is cantilevered toward a contact end of the receptacle shield body and extends toward a mount end of the receptacle shield body.
Regarding claim 12, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the cantilevered shield arm comprises a compliant arm and a shield paddle.
Regarding claim 13, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the shield paddle is separated from the receptacle shield body by a shield clearance area.
Regarding claim 22, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses based on how far the receptacle assembly is inserted into the plug assembly, the pair of contact beams is configured to contact different locations of the opposing surfaces of the cantilevered blade beam.
Regarding claim 23, in the modified board-to-board array connector, Antonini discloses the receptacle shield body comprises an electrically-conductive, metallic material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonini (WO 2019/217521) in view of Sochor (US 4,140,361).
Antonini substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the shield paddle is arrange in opposite direction so that the shield paddle is configured to bend from a position further toward a center of the receptacle shield body to a position further away from the center of the receptacle shield body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the shield paddle such as it is bending in the claimed direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-19, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2011. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday (7-4).
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, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TRUC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights