DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on April 4, 2024.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 5, "includes part covering" should be --includes a part covering--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 4-5: the examiner suggests that "wherein the minimum clearance between the reinforcing member and the connector" be changed to --wherein in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface, the minimum clearance between the reinforcing member and the connector-- in order to make it clear to the reader in what direction this clearance spans.
Claim 7, line 7: "the substate" does not appear elsewhere in the claims or in the specification, therefore the examiner is interpreting "the substate" to mean --the circuit board-- and requests that the applicant amends it accordingly.
Claim 8, line 2: "connecter" should be --connector--.
Claim 9, line 4: "the other end position" lacks antecedent basis and should be --another end position--; or "between one end position to the other end position" may be changed to --between two end positions-- or --between two opposite end positions--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US-20140187061-A1) in view of Hsu, et al. (US-20240047905-A1).
With respect to Claim 1:
Lai discloses an electronic apparatus 1000 comprising:
a circuit board 15 having a mounting surface (Fig. 1);
a connector 18 mounted on the mounting surface of the circuit board 15 (Fig. 1), a plug being capable of being inserted into and removed from the connector 18 (Fig. 1);
a chassis (Fig. 1: the unlabeled surface on which the circuit board 15 is fastened) having a mounting portion substantially parallel to the mounting surface (Fig. 1: the chassis and circuit board 15 are parallel to each other); and
a reinforcing member 10 that includes a portion 12 covering the connector 18 from an opposite side to the mounting portion in a direction orthogonal to the mounting surface (Figs. 4-7: a portion of 12 covers a portion of the connector 18) and is fixed to the chassis (Figs. 4-7), and
wherein in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface, a minimum clearance between the reinforcing member 10 and the connector 18 is smaller than a minimum clearance between the reinforcing member 10 and the circuit board 15 (Fig. 5: the distance between the top of 10 and the connector 18 is less than the distance between the top of 10 and the circuit board 15).
Lai does not explicitly disclose wherein the connector and the circuit board can move in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface between the chassis and the reinforcing member.
However, Hsu teaches a reinforced connection between a signal joint 100 (connector) and a circuit board 20 using a clamp component 220 (chassis) and mount components 230 (reinforcing member), wherein springs 240 are positioned between the mount components 230 and the clamp component 220, thereby allowing the circuit board 20 to move in a direction orthogonal to its mounting surface between the clamp component 220 (chassis) and the mount components 230 (reinforcing member) (Figs. 2-6).
Thus, Lai and Hsu each disclose a connector with a reinforced connection to a circuit board. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the mount components of Hsu could be combined with the reinforcing member of Lai because it would allow for slight movement between the reinforcing member and the connector and circuit board, thus reducing mechanical strain on the parts when subjected to external forces. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 4:
Lai in view of Hsu discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Lai also discloses wherein the reinforcing member 10 is formed with an opening 121 extending therethrough in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface (Fig. 2), wherein a resilient member 16 is disposed in the opening 121 (Fig. 4), and wherein the connector 18 is urged toward the mounting portion in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface via the resilient member 16 (Figs. 4-7).
Claims 5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US-20140187061-A1) in view of Hsu, et al. (US-20240047905-A1), further in view of Kojima (JP-2012146594-A).
With respect to Claim 5:
Lai in view of Hsu discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Lai in view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose wherein the mounting portion of the chassis is formed with an opening, wherein a resilient member is disposed in the opening, and wherein the circuit board is urged toward an opposite side to the mounting portion in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface via the resilient member.However, Kojima teaches a reinforced connector 10 fastened to a circuit board 9 and a chassis 8 via a reinforcing member 15 (Fig. 3), wherein the chassis 8 is formed with an opening (Fig. 3: screw holes on chassis 8), wherein a resilient member 14 (screws) is disposed in the opening (Fig. 3), and wherein the circuit board 9 is urged toward an opposite side to the mounting portion in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface via the resilient member 14.
Thus, Lai and Kojima each disclose reinforced connectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the opening of the chassis and its interaction with resilient members of Kojima could be combined with the reinforced connector of Lai because it would provide further security between the connector, the reinforcing member, and the chassis. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 11:
Lai in view of Hsu discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Lai in view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose wherein the connector is an HDMI connector.
However, it is well known in the art to use an HDMI connector. For example, Kojima (JP-2012146594-A) discloses a reinforced connector jack which includes an HDMI connector. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the connector of Lai in view of Hsu could be an HDMI connector.
With respect to Claim 12:
Lai in view of Hsu discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Lai in view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic apparatus is an image capturing apparatus having an image capturing function.
However, it is well known in the art to use a reinforced electronic apparatus as an image capturing apparatus having an image capturing function. For example, Kojima (JP-2012146594-A) discloses a reinforced connector jack designed for use in an image capturing apparatus. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the connector of Lai in view of Hsu could be used in an image capturing apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the connector includes a resin part having a plurality of contact terminals insert-molded therein, and wherein in the direction orthogonal to the mounting surface, the minimum clearance between the reinforcing member and the connector is a clearance between the reinforcing member and the resin part,” as recited in claim 2, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 2. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 2, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claims 3 and 8-9 are dependent on claim 2 and are therefore allowable.
Regarding Claim 6, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the resilient member is a conductive member, and is electrically connected to a ground member in the electronic apparatus,” as recited in claim 6, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 6. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 6, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 7, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein positioning bosses are provided on the mounting portion, wherein positioning holes are formed in the circuit board, wherein positioning holes are formed in the reinforcing member, and wherein the positioning bosses are inserted through the positioning holes of the circuit board and the positioning holes of the reinforcing member, whereby relative positions of the circuit board and the reinforcing member to the chassis in a surface direction of the mounting surface are determined,” as recited in claim 7, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 7. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 7, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 10, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the connector includes a resin part having a plurality of contact terminals insert-molded therein and a shell, and wherein in a pitch direction of the plurality of contact terminals, a minimum clearance between the reinforcing member and the resin part is smaller than a minimum clearance between the reinforcing member and the shell,” as recited in claim 10, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 10. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 10, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 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, Abdullah A. Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights