DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 12 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. Rule1.75(d)(1). The terms and the phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See MPEP 2173.03. “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
In particular, the intervals as set out regarding claim 1, wherein “wherein each of the intervals allows fluid to flow between one of the two through holes and outside the housing through the interval” lack clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. No intervals as described were identified in the disclosure.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the device as claimed in claim 1, including two through holes as set out in claim 1, and further including (per claim 2) that “the plurality of leads are aligned with each other in a first direction along the second surface” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown in applicant’s figure 4 annotated below, leads aligned in one row (labeled R1) are not aligned with leads in another row (labeled R2). Leads aligned in one column (labeled C1) are not aligned with leads in another column (C2).
Regarding claim 8, the device as claimed including “the plurality of leads are aligned with each other in a first direction along the second surface, was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown in applicant’s figure 4, leads aligned in one row (labeled R1) are not aligned with leads in another row (labeled R2). Leads aligned in one column (labeled C1) are not aligned with leads in another column (C2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1366
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hotsuki et al. US 12489237 (“Hotsuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Hotsuki discloses a connector comprising:
a housing (10, 20) having a first surface (downward facing surfaces of the housing in figure 3) and a second surface (upward facing surfaces of the housing in figure 3) opposite the first surface,
the housing being provided with two through holes (labeled TH1 and TH2 in annotated figure 1 below) each opening to the first surface and the second surface, and including a wall (labeled “wall” below) located between the two through holes; and
a plurality of leads 30 arranged at intervals, each of the plurality of leads including a first terminal accommodated in the through hole that extends along the wall, wherein
the first terminal (labeled TE1 below) of at least one of the plurality of leads is accommodated in one of the two through holes, and
the first terminal (labeled TE2 below) of another of the plurality of leads is accommodated in the other of the two through holes.
PNG
media_image2.png
1270
993
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3 each of the plurality of leads includes a second terminal (labeled TE2 above) that is located outside the two through hole holes, the second terminal being connected to the first terminal, and the first surface faces the second terminal.
Per claim 4 the housing has a fourth surface (labeled S4) facing a direction different from a direction which the first surface faces,
the housing is provided with a cutout (labeled CTO) at a corner between the first surface and the fourth surface, and the second terminal extends across the cutout in a projection view seen in a direction orthogonal to the second surface.
Per claim 5, the second terminal includes:
a first part (labeled P1) extending along the first surface;
a second part (labeled P2) being spaced further from the housing than the first part;
and a third part (labeled P3) extending obliquely relative to the first part between the first part and the second part,
and the second part and the third part are spaced from the first surface in the projection view seen in the direction orthogonal to the second surface.
Per claim 7, the second terminal (see at P2 above) is spaced from the housing.
Per claim 12 each of the intervals (labeled “Interval” below) allows fluid to flow between one of the two through holes (labeled TH1 below) and outside the housing (labeled OH) through the interval. For example, fluid can flow from location “A” below to location “B” through the interval in the area between the through hole and the outside of the housing.
PNG
media_image3.png
1190
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotsuki.
Regarding claim 9, Hotsuki discloses device comprising:
the connector according to claim 1; and
a substrate B1 including a mounting surface facing the first surface.
Hotsuki does not explicitly disclose the pads on the mounting surface. The examiner takes Official notice that it was well known in the art to provide circuitry and pads in circuit boards and have connectors such as taught in Hotsuki solder mounted on such pads such that the mounting terminals of the connector are electrically to the boards via such mounting pads. It would have been obvious to do so with the Hotsuki connector.
To the extent the Hotsuki does not disclose a disk device, the examiner takes Official notice that disk devices were well known in the art. It would have been obvious to use the Hotsuki device in various electronic devices, including a disk device, to provide electrical connectivity between components of the disk device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowable. Claims 6 and 10 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.
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 ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights