DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Per claim 9 at least one of the shielding housing, the dielectric insulator and the at least one contact element comprises two legs oriented at an angle with respect to each other.
Per claim 10, the contact module comprises two contact elements forming a differential pair both surrounded at least sectionally by the dielectric insulator and the shielding housing.
Per claim 11, a pair of contact modules . . . wherein the two contact modules differ in their lengths.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Correction is required in response to this Office action and corrections may not be held in abeyance. Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.185(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set (or extended) period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation that “the receptacle of the dielectric insulator
comprises a through hole and/or a laterally open channel into which the at least one contact element is inserted” is indefinite. It is unknown whether the limitation means that the contact element is inserted into either or both or one or the other of the through hole and channel. The limitation is given little weight.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “a hump located in the section with the narrower width of the through hole and/or the channel” is indefinite. It is unknown what the alternative elements referred to by the “and/or” conjunction are. The limitation is given little weight.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of “the at least one contact module is received in the at least one contact opening protruding into the mating face” is indefinite. It is unknown what is protruding into the mating face, either the contact module or the contact opening. The limitation is given little weight.
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of claims 2, 6, and 9 are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 2, the “at least one contact element” . . . does not share both a single structural similarity and a common use with the “the dielectric insulator . . . .” The alternatives have different structures and different functions, one being a conductor, the other being an insulator.
Regarding claim 6, the “a connection section . . . “ and the “mating section . . . “ do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The alternatives have different structures and different functions.
Regarding claim 9, the shielding housing, the dielectric insulator and the contact element do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The alternatives have different structures and different functions.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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 1-6, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US 10424861 (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a contact module for transmission of high-frequency signals, wherein the contact module comprises
at least one electrically conductive contact element 51 adapted for transmitting the high-frequency signals,
a dielectric insulator 21 and
an electrically conductive shielding housing 61;
wherein the dielectric insulator surrounds the at least one contact element at least sectionally; and
wherein the dielectric insulator with the at least one contact element is held and surrounded by the shielding housing;
and wherein the shielding housing is monolithically folded around the dielectric insulator.
Per claim 2, the dielectric insulator is set-in into an access opening of the shielding housing.
Regarding claim 3, “the receptacle of the dielectric insulator . . .” is optional as set out regarding claim 2 and not necessarily part of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, “the through hole . . .” is optional as set out regarding claims 2 and 3 and not necessarily part of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, “the at least one contact element . . .” is optional as set out regarding claims 2-4 and not necessarily part of the invention.
Per claim 6 the contact module forms a connection section configured to be attached to a printed circuit board.
Per claim 9 the shielding housing comprises two legs (64, 66) oriented at an angle with respect to each other (figure 6F).
Per claim 12, Suzuki discloses an electrical connector 1 comprising at least one contact module according to claim 1 and a connector housing 11 with a mating face and at least one contact opening 17a leading into the mating face, wherein the at least one contact module is received in the at least one contact opening protruding into the mating face.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses a method for manufacturing a contact module for transmitting high-frequency signals, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
providing an electrically conductive shielding housing 61 that is folded around an inner volume that is accessible through an access opening of the shielding housing,
a dielectric insulator 21 being located in the inner volume of the shielding housing, and at least one electrically conductive contact element 51 being received in the dielectric insulator,
closing the access opening by further folding the shielding housing (col. 8, lines 5-35).
Per claim 14 the shielding housing is provided as a part with a flat shape (col. 7, lines 30-35), wherein the shielding housing is folded to surround the inner volume with the access opening leading into the inner volume, and wherein the dielectric insulator is inserted through the access opening into the inner volume of the shielding housing (col. 8, lines 5-35).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. US 12322908 (“Takeuchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a contact module for transmission of high-frequency signals, wherein the contact module comprises
at least one electrically conductive contact element (11 or 12) adapted for transmitting the high-frequency signals,
a dielectric insulator (16 or 17) and
an electrically conductive shielding housing (15);
wherein the dielectric insulator surrounds the at least one contact element at least sectionally; and
wherein the dielectric insulator with the at least one contact element is held and surrounded by the shielding housing;
and wherein the shielding housing is monolithically folded around the dielectric insulator.
Per claim 11 Takeuchi discloses a connector including a pair of contact modules, module 1 including contact element 12, dielectric 17 and shielding housing 15, module 2 including contact element 11, dielectric 16 and shielding housing 115, wherein the two contact modules differ in their lengths.
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.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhao et al. US 2023/0369797 (“Zhao”).
Per claim 7 Suzuki discloses that the at least one contact element protrudes out of the dielectric insulator (at 52). Suzuki does not disclose that wherein the dielectric insulator comprises a positioning pin extending parallel with the at least one contact element.
Zhao discloses a connector including at least one contact element 20 protruding
out of the dielectric insulator 10, and wherein the dielectric insulator comprises a positioning pin (labeled pp in annotated figure 3 below) extending parallel with the at least one contact element (at 222).
It would have been obvious to include a positioning pin on the Suzuki insulator as taught in Zhao. The reason would have been to facilitate mounting the connector on a board as was well know in the art. 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
1096
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, as taught in Zhao the positioning pin protrudes farther than the at least one contact element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of El Ouardi et al. US 12500383 (“El Ouardi”).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki does not disclose that the contact module comprises two contact elements forming a differential pair both surrounded at least sectionally by the dielectric insulator and the shielding housing.
El Ouardi discloses a contact module that comprises two contact elements 20 inherently forming a differential pair both surrounded at least sectionally by the dielectric insulator 10 and the shielding housing 30.
It would have been obvious to modify the Suzuki connector to include two contact elements forming a differential pair both surrounded at least sectionally by the dielectric insulator as taught in El Ouardi. The reason would have been to facilitate the transmission of differential signals as was known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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
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