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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 recited: “assembly, characterized by comprising an” should be --assembly comprising: an--
Claims 2-18, and 20 line 1 recited: “characterized in” should be –wherein--
Claim 19 line 1 recited: “connector, characterized by comprising” should be --connector comprising: --
Appropriate correction is required.
(Note: Applicant is reminded to correct are the minor issues as stated above throughout the claim set. Since, Examiner just showed an example as indicated above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 5-7, and 13 are as best understood and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawai et al. (US 8011967).
As per claim 1: Sawai et al. discloses a terminal assembly comprising: an insulator 111 and terminal bodies 161 arranged on an outer circumferential wall of the insulator 111 (see fig. 14a, wherein the terminal is located around the insulator body).
As per claims 2-3, 5-7, 13: Sawai et al. discloses the terminal assembly, wherein limiting grooves (not label, see fig. 14a) compatible with the terminal bodies 161 are formed in the outer circumferential wall of the insulator 111, and the terminal bodies 161 are located in the limiting grooves (see fig. 14a); and an extension direction of the terminal bodies 161 is parallel to an axis of the insulator 111 (see fig. 14a); and that one end of each terminal body 161 is extended along a radial direction of the insulator 111 to form a bending part (see fig. 14a); and at least two terminal bodies 161 are used, and are arranged on the outer circumferential wall of the insulator 111; and a female socket shell assembly 101 (see fig. 16), wherein the terminal assembly is arranged in the female socket shell assembly 101 (as shown in fig. 18); and wherein a male plug shell assembly 11, the terminal assembly is arranged in the male plug shell assembly 11 (as shown in fig. 18);
Claim(s) 1-are as best understood and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2023/0223723).
As per claim 1: Chen discloses a terminal assembly 100, comprising an insulator 3 and terminal bodies 31 arranged on an outer circumferential wall of the insulator 3 (as shown in fig. 7).
(Note: claim 1 can be rejected by Endo et al. (US 2016/0134066 also)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4 as best understood and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai et al. (US 8011967) in view of Endo et al. (US 2016/0134066).
As per claim 1: Sawai et al. discloses the terminal assembly 100. However, Sawai et al. does not explicitly mention wherein the terminal assembly also comprises a coaxial assembly which arranged in the insulator along the axis of the insulator.
Endo et al. discloses wherein the terminal assembly also comprises a coaxial assembly and the coaxial assembly which is arranged in the insulator along the axis of the insulator (as shown in fig. 19) to further enhance a stable, reliable and secure connector within and to provide a better connection to other sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the terminal assembly of Sawai et al. by having wherein the terminal assembly also comprises a coaxial assembly which arranged in the insulator along the axis of the insulator as taught by Endo et al. to further enhance a stable, reliable and secure connector within and to provide a better connection to other sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12, 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0288. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-6:30pm.
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 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights