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 § 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) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0065454 (“Milbrand”).
Regarding claim 1, Milbrand discloses:
A connector assembly (FIG 1), comprising:
a receptacle (110); and
a pluggable module (150), comprising:
a housing (12A:1210); and
a first paddle card (1100B) and a second paddle card (1100A) oriented vertically with respect to one another at least partially in the housing (as shown in FIGS 12A, 12B), wherein the first paddle card has a front end positioned at a first insertion depth and the second paddle card has a front end positioned at a second insertion depth, the first insertion depth and the second insertion depth being different from one another (as shown in FIGS 7A, 7B, 12A, 12B).
Regarding claim 2, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first and second paddle cards each having respective top and bottom conductive pads (FIG 12A shows bottom pads, FIG 12B shows top pads).
Regarding claim 3, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the receptacle comprising a first plurality of terminals oriented to receive the first paddle card (FIG 5, terminals 512A, 512B) and form an electrical connection with the top and bottom conductive pads thereof (para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses the receptacle further comprises a second plurality of terminals oriented to receive the second paddle card (FIG 5, terminals 512C, 512D) and form an electrical connection with the top and bottom conductive pads thereof (para. [0113]).
Regarding claim 6, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the front end of the first interface or the front end of the second interface comprises a triangular-shaped projection (FIGS 10, 11; as seen in FIG 10, an upper and lower portion of each paddle card has a front-end portion including a slanted surface that, when combined with the other portion, forms a “triangular shaped projection” which extends forwardly from a flat upper and lower surface of the paddle card).
Regarding claim 8, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the receptacle comprising a plurality of insertion fingers defining a port (FIG 4, fingers 416, 418, etc.; see also para. [0054]).
Regarding claims 9-13, 15, and 17, Applicant merely provides an alternative recitation of the subject matter recited by claims 1-4, 6, and 8. As shown above, this subject matter is anticipated by Milbrand. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8, applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 9-13, 15, and 17.
For clarity of the record, Examiner notes that claim 9 recites a broader scope than claim 1, omitting both the receptacle of claim 1 and referring to the paddle cards of claim 1 as “interfaces.” Recitation of paddle cards is found in claim 10. As such, rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to both claims 9 and 10. Claims 11-13 recite identical limitations to those found in claims 2-4, thus the rejection of claims 2-4 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11-13. Claims 15 and 17 recite identical limitations to those found in claims 6 and 8, thus the rejection of claims 6 and 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 15 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 13 and further discloses the first paddle card being positioned above the second paddle card, as well as the first terminals being positioned above the second terminals, each with respect to a bottom surface of the pluggable module or receptacle, as appropriate (see FIG 7A where first paddle card 710B is above second paddle card 710A; see FIG 5 where first terminals 512A,B are above second terminals 512C,D).
Regarding claim 20, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 19, and further discloses the limitations of instant claim 20, but requires a different interpretation of Milbrand with respect to some preceding claims.
As filed, claim 20 recites “the first insertion depth is less than the second insertion depth such that…the first paddle card comes into contact with the first plurality of terminals prior to the second paddle card coming into contact with the second plurality of terminals.” This is dependent upon the first paddle card and terminals being positioned above the second paddle card and terminals “with respect to a bottom surface” of the plug and receptacle, respectively.
Turning then to FIG 7A of Milbrand, inverting the figure (e.g., installing the receptacle on an underside of a circuit board) permits the following interpretation: first paddle card and first terminals are depicted by paddle card 170A and slot 520A, respectively; second paddle card and second terminals are depicted by paddle card 170B and 520B, respectively. As shown by the inverted FIG 7A, first paddle card 170A is positioned over second paddle card 170B with respect to a bottom surface, e.g., the surface closest to numeral 1232. Similarly, first terminals would be located within cavity 520A and positioned over second terminals located in cavity 520B. Thus, inverted FIG 7A, representing installation of the receptacle on an underside of a circuit board, discloses the limitations of claims 18 and 19.
Turning then to instant claim 20, inverted FIG 7A of Milbrand further discloses the first insertion depth (i.e., interpreted by Examiner to be represented by a distance between a mating end of paddle card 170A and the entrance of cavity 520A) is less than the second insertion depth (i.e., interpreted by Examiner to be represented by a distance between a mating end of paddle card 170B and the entrance of cavity 520B) such that, when the pluggable module is positioned in a housing of the receptacle (as shown in FIG 7A), the first paddle card comes into contact with the first plurality of terminals prior to the second paddle card coming into contact with the second plurality of terminals (if the distances as interpreted above are measured, it is evident that inverted FIG 7A depicts a first depth that is less than a second depth, resulting in the paddle card 170A coming into contact with terminals in cavity 520A prior to paddle card 170B coming into contact with respective terminals in cavity 520B).
Thus, when the Milbrand reference is considered for all that it discloses, it is evident that Milbrand anticipates the limitations of instant claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milbrand as applied to claims 4 and 13, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0042821 (“Pax”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claims 4 and 13, respectively, but does not disclose the top and bottom contact pads of the first paddle card having conductive pad lengths that vary from the top and bottom conductive pads of the second paddle card.
Milbrand does, however, disclose that the contact elements of the paddle cards may have differing dimensions (paras. [0142-145]), and more specifically that one subset of conductive elements may have differing lengths from a second subset (paras. [0143] and [0159]). Thus, it is evident from Milbrand that the particular dimensions of a contact pad are a matter of routine design choice, subject to the particular implementation or application of the connector.
Moreover, Pax explicitly correlates contact pad length with required insertion force, providing that contact pads having different lengths results in pad contact at “different times during the insertion process” which effectively reduces “the required insertion force” (para. [0034]).
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Milbrand such that the contact pads of the first paddle card have varying lengths relative to contact pads of the second paddle card for the purposes of reducing the required insertion force when mating the connectors, as is taught by Pax.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milbrand as applied to claims 4 and 13, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,797,982 (“Eylers”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Milbrand discloses the limitations as set forth in claims 4 and 13, respectively, and further discloses straight chamfered terminals (see FIG 5) but does not explicitly disclose the chamfer being a 50 degree chamfer.
Eylers stands for the proposition that a chamfered edge substantially reduces the force required for insertion of a mating connector relative to an unchamfered edge (col. 2, ll. 21-31). As a chamfer is nothing more than a sloping edge portion of a surface, it logically follows that the aspect of the chamfer which facilitates a reduction in required insertion force is the specific angle of the chamfer.
Thus, the sole difference between Milbrand and the instant claim may be reasonably construed as being a matter of routine optimization, particularly with respect to angling the chamfer to achieve a desired reduction in the required insertion force of the pluggable module.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As shown above, Milbrand unambiguously discloses “the general conditions” of claims 7 and 16, varying only in the specific angle and straightness of the chamfer. As evidenced by Eylers, a chamfered edge reduces the amount of required insertion force, and as may be reasonably inferred by those of ordinary skill, it is the specific angle of the chamfer that correlates to required insertion force.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Milbrand to utilize a 50 degree chamfer for the purposes of optimizing the amount of insertion force required to insert the pluggable module within the receptacle. Thus, Milbrand in view of Eylers disclose the instant limitations of claims 7 and 16.
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
Prosecution Insights