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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to an electrical connector assembly having plural terminal modules with the same structure, each terminal module comprising a sideband section positioned between two high-speed sections, classified in H01R13/514.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to a method of making an electrical connector, including the steps of molding an insulating material over rows of terminals to create first and second terminal modules, including a step of producing terminals by stamping prior to overmolding, classified in H01R43/16 and H01R43/24.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product of Invention I may be made without stamping the terminals and/or without producing the terminal modules by molding an insulative material over the rows of terminals.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
As shown above, the first and second groups are separately classified.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with MING CHIEH CHANG on 05/28/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the terminal module” in line 5 of the claim as filed. It is unclear which terminal module is being referenced: “a terminal module” of line 3; “a first terminal module” of line 3; or “a second terminal module” of lines 3-4. Appropriate clarification is required.
Applicant also recites “the cable is mechanically and electrically connected to the high-speed terminal area” in lines 13-14 of the claim as filed. There are no fewer than four high speed terminal areas as provided in the previous limitations of claim 1, making it unclear which specific high-speed area is being referenced. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “at least one empty terminal space is provided” on each of the first and second row of terminals. It is unclear how a “row of terminals” would include “an empty terminal,” particularly so when “an empty terminal” is the absence of a terminal. The instant disclosure provides that “empty terminal 209” is formed by “punch[ing] off the mating portion 231 of at least one terminal.” This does not, however, constitute a special definition and therefore cannot limit interpretation of the prior art or the instant claim. Examiner must then turn to the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation to evaluate the claimed subject matter.
A terminal which exists but has been modified to remove an electrical contact portion thereof is not “empty.” As defined by Merriam-Webster, “empty” means “containing nothing.” The modified terminal still exists, and thus cannot contain nothing, meaning that it is not “empty” in the commonly understood sense of the term. In order to be “empty,” the terminal must be wholly omitted. Thus, for purposes of examination, “at least one empty terminal space” will be interpreted to mean a row of terminals wherein, at one end of said row or said terminal, empty space is provided. Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 4-13 depend from claim 3, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “a corresponding shielding layer” in line 4 of the claim as filed. It is unclear whether this is meant to refer back to “a shielding layer outside of each pair of signal core wires” as recited in parent claim 4, or some other shielding layer provided in addition to those of claim 4. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as referencing the shielding layers of the cables recited in claim 4. Claims 6-13 depend from claim 5, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,011,177 (“Lloyd”).
Regarding claim 1, Lloyd discloses:
An electrical connector assembly (title) comprising:
an insulative housing (FIG 10) having a front mating slot (113) and a rear receiving space (inherent; FIGS 10 and 11 evidence the inherent presence of “a rear receiving space” configured to receive the terminal modules);
a terminal module (FIG 12) including a first terminal module (portion of the module including 118A) and a second terminal module (portion of the module including 118B) stacked with each other in a vertical direction (as shown); and
a cable electrically connected to the terminal module (cables 107, connected as shown in FIGS 10-12); wherein
the first terminal module includes a first row of terminals (120) arranged in a transverse direction (horizontally arranged terminals, as shown) perpendicular to the vertical direction and a first insulating member (118A) holding the first row of terminals (as shown),
the second terminal module includes a second row of terminals (120) arranged along the transverse direction (horizontally arranged terminals, as shown) and a second insulating member (118B) holding the second row of terminals (as shown),
each of the first row of terminals and the second row of terminals include a sideband terminal area (the central section including terminals 134, as shown in FIGS 11 and 12A) and high-speed terminal areas located on two sides of the sideband terminal area in the transverse direction (col. 7, ll. 25-27; “terminals 134 that are interposed between the high speed terminal sets”),
the cable is mechanically and electrically connected to the high-speed terminal area (see FIG 11, where cables 107 are affixed to terminal tails; see also FIGS 12, 12A),
the sideband terminal area includes a plurality of sideband terminals (as shown), and
the first row of terminals and the second row of terminals have [the] same structure1 (as seen and inferred from FIGS 12, 12A, each of the upper and lower terminal sets 118A and 118B have the “same” structure in that they are provided as a row of terminals, wherein the sideband terminals include tail portions extending along a vertical direction and wherein the high-speed terminals include stub portions which connect to cables).
Regarding claim 2, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a transfer terminal for mounting on an external circuit board (see FIGS 11A, 12A). As seen in FIG 11, a tail portion of terminals 134 is in contact with an external circuit board. Notably, claim 2 does not recite any specific correlation between these “transfer terminals” and the previously recited “terminal areas” or terminal of claim 1. Thus, Examiner may broadly and reasonably construe claim 2 such that the “transfer terminals” are a component within the sideband terminal area. As Lloyd discloses at least 5 terminals in the sideband terminal area, at least one of these terminals may be construed as “a transfer terminal” while the remainder constitute “a plurality of sideband terminals” as required by claim 1. Thus, Lloyd discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 2 when the claim is evaluated under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 3, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses each of the first and second rows of terminals including a plurality of electric terminals for mating with a mating connector (see FIG 10, where terminals 120 are inserted into housing 112 such that, when a mating connector is inserted into slot 113, electric terminals 120 mate with the mating connector terminals; see also claim 1 discussing the mating connector), and at least one empty terminal space is provided on at least one of the two sides of the electrical terminals in the transverse direction (inherent; see discussion below).
As discussed above, the phrase “at least one empty terminal space” does not have any clear or well-defined meaning in context of the instant claim. Instead, under broadest reasonable interpretation, all that is required is provision of “at least one empty space” that is related or relevant to the “terminal” or terminals of each row of terminals. As may be seen in FIG 10 of Lloyd, there is “empty space” provided between adjacent terminals of the upper and lower rows of terminals. There is, additionally, empty space on either side of each row of terminals. Thus, Examiner finds that Lloyd inherently discloses “at least one empty terminal space” that is “provided on at least one of the two sides of the electrical terminals in the tranverse direction” when the claim is construed under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 4, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses the terminals in the high speed area including a plurality of ground terminals and a plurality of signal terminal pairs arranged between adjacent ground terminals (FIG 12A; col. 7, ll. 33-48), each of the ground terminal and the signal terminals including a mating portion and a tail portion (signal tails 132A, 132B; ground tails 132C; mating portions 120), and the cable includes a pair of signal core wires connected to a corresponding part of signal terminals (col. 7, ll. 33-39) and a shielding layer outside each pair of signal core wires (inner shielding 148).
Regarding claim 5, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 4 and further discloses a connecting portion (contact feet 146a-c) the connects at least two ground terminals together (col. 7, ll. 43-48) and a grounding member (shield extension 146) that circumferentially2 surrounds each pair of signal core wires (as shown) and is electrically connected to a corresponding shielding layer (col. 7, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 6, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 and further discloses the grounding member (146) being arranged on the connecting portion (146a-c) and is mechanically and electrically connected to the connecting portion (grounding member 146 is integrally formed with connecting portions 146a-c, thus it is inherent “arranged on” the connecting portions as well as being mechanically and electrically integral with the connecting portions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are subject to rejection under §112, as detailed above, but would be allowable if the rejection were overcome and the claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Lloyd discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and further discloses the connecting portion (contact feet 146a-c collectively form “the connecting portion”) is connected to at least three ground terminals (see FIG 12A), the connecting portion is provided with a plurality of tabs (each of contact feet 146a-c may be reasonably interpreted as “a tab”), but does not disclose the grounding member having a number of holes mechanically and electrically connected to corresponding tabs. Examiner is unable to find any other prior art which, alone or in reasonable combination with others, discloses the limitations of instant claim 7.
Thus, claim 7 would be allowable if its corresponding rejection were overcome and the claim were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 1) and any intervening claims (claims 4-6). Claims 8-13 depend from claim 7 and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons under the same circumstances as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “same structure” does not require the rows of terminals to be completely identical in all aspects. Instead, it merely requires that the “structure” be the same. Broadly interpreted, “structure” may be interpreted as “the arrangement…of parts in a substance or body,” as defined by Merriam-Webster. Thus, the provision of a “sideband” section flanked on either side by a “high-speed” section constitutes an “arrangement” of the terminals within the body of the connector, and thus this arrangement may be broadly interpreted as “same structure” without having an identical physical configuration.
2 Under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “circumferentially surrounds” does not require surrounding the full circumference of the wire. Broadly interpreted, “circumferentially” may be defined as “of or relating to the circumference,” as provided by Merriam-Webster. Thus, partial surrounding of the periphery of the wire is still “circumferential” as it relates to the circumference, i.e., the outer periphery, of the wire. Thus, even partial surrounding would read on the instant claim when construed under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Prosecution Insights