DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 4/19/2024.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JAPAN 2023-073572, filed on 04/27/2023.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 7 – 8, recite “surface of the fitting is to be partially plated after the insert molding, the fitting includes a mounting portion to be mounted to a mounted object”. The phrases “is to be partially plated” and “a mounting portion to be mounted” do not positively recite a structural limitation of the claimed electrical connector. Instead, these phrases suggest an intended future manufacturing step of the fitting, making it unclear whether the claim requires the fitting to actually include a partially plated and to include a mounting portion in a mounted state, or merely indicates that the fitting is capable of such future actions. Accordingly, it is unclear whether these recitations constitute mandatory or optional limitations of the claimed apparatus. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret these limitations as being mandatory limitations.
Claim 3, line 3, recites “and the third surface, the fourth surface forms a fracture surface…”. The term “third surface” lacks antecedent basis because it was not positively recited in claim 1. The Examiner notes that “a third surface” is recited in claim 2, but since claim 3 depends on claim 1, the term “third surface” lacks antecedent basis.
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) 1, 4, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11075475) in view of Miki (US 20050103761).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) an electrical connector comprising: a housing (1, 4) including a lengthwise direction (annotation, Y-direction), a crosswise direction (annotation, X-direction), and a height direction (annotation, Z-direction) which are mutually orthogonal (see annotation); and a fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) held by the housing (1, 4), wherein the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) is integrally molded with the housing (1, 4) by insert molding (i.e. column 2, lines 27 – 37), the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) is made of a conductive thin plate-shaped base material (fittings 2 and 5 electrically connect as seen in figure 11, they are inherently made of conductive material) held by the housing (1, 4), the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) includes a mounting portion (24, 53) to be mounted to a mounted object (column 2, lines 22 – 27), the mounting portion (24, 53) including a first surface (1s) and a second surface (2s), the first surface (1s) being provided on one side of the base material (base material of 2, 5) in a thickness direction and forming a mounting surface (1s mounts onto a PCB; column 2, lines 22 – 27) opposing the mounted portion (24, 53), and the second surface (2s) being positioned on an opposite side to the mounting surface in the thickness direction (see annotation).
But Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein a surface of the fitting is to be partially plated after the insert molding, and a first thickness of a plated portion on the first surface is greater than a second thickness of a plated portion on the second surface.
Miki teaches (figures 2, 6b, 16b) a connector wherein a surface of the fitting (surface of 1) is to be partially plated (see figures 2 and 6b; partially plated with 7, 80; ¶0004) after the insert molding, and a first thickness of a plated portion (thickness at plated portion 7) on the first surface (first surface of 1) is greater than a second thickness (thickness at plated portion 80; see figure 16b) of a plated portion (80) on the second surface (second surface of 1; ¶0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the insert molded fitting of Chen to include the partially plated surface as taught by Miki in order to prevent diffusion of solder from the terminal portion and the contacting portion due to low wettability of nickel and solder (see ¶0004 of Miki), improving the reliability of the electrical contact. Furthermore, although neither reference expressly discloses that the partial plating is performed after insert molding, the recited sequence of performing the partial plating after insert molding is a product by process limitation, which merely specifies a manufacturing process for producing the claimed fitting and does not impart a structural distinction to the resulting connector. The addition of a method step in a product claim, which product is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the old product. In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969). “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113.
~ Please see annotation of figure 10 in the Chen reference, where the lengthwise direction Y, the crosswise direction X, the height direction Z, the first surface 1s, the second surface 2s, the bottom walls bw and bw2, the longitudinal wall lw, the protruding wall pw, the mounting portions mp and mp2, the first walls 1w and 1w2, the second walls 2w and 2w2, the third walls 3w and 3w2, the fourth wall 4w, and the fifth wall 5w can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1.
But Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the plating is performed by gold plating.
Miki teaches (figures 2 and 6b) a connector wherein the plating is performed by gold plating (i.e. see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen with the connector as disclosed by Miki to provide wherein the plating is performed by gold plating, to improve the corrosion resistance of the fitting.
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the electrical connector comprises a plug connector (200), the plug connector includes the housing (4) and the fitting (5, 6) held by the housing (4), the housing (4) includes: a bottom wall (annotation “bw2”; 41); a peripheral wall (4211); and a fitting depression (423); the bottom wall (annotation “bw2”; 41) being arranged on a mounted portion (portion mounted onto PCB) of the mounted object (column 2, lines 22 – 27), the peripheral wall (4211) including a longitudinal wall (annotation “lw”) and a short-side wall (4221) which protrude in a height direction of the housing (4) from the bottom wall (annotation “bw2”; 41), and the fitting depression (423) being provided on an inner peripheral side of the peripheral wall (see annotation; 423 is on inner peripheral side), and the fitting (5, 6) includes a plug terminal (see annotation), the plug terminal includes: the mounting portion (annotation “mp2”); a first wall (annotation “1w2”); a second wall (annotation “2w2”); and a third wall (annotation “3w2”); the first wall bending in a first height direction of the housing from the mounting portion (annotation “mp2”) and extending, the second wall bending in the crosswise direction of the housing from a connecting part with the first wall (see figure 10, annotation) and extending, and the third wall extending in a second height direction on an opposite side to the first height direction from a connecting part with the second wall and opposing the first wall (see figure 10, annotation), and the fitting (5, 6) is held by the housing (4) since the longitudinal wall (annotation “lw”) of the peripheral wall (4211) of the housing is provided in an inner area surrounded by the first wall (annotation “1w2”), the second wall (annotation “2w2”), and the third wall (annotation “3w2”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) includes a terminal (2, 5 are terminals) and a reinforcement fitting (3, 6 are reinforcement fittings).
Claim(s) 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11075475) in view of Miki (US 20050103761) and further in view of Li (US 11268204).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the mounting portion (24, 53) of the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) further includes a third surface (side surface of 24) provided on both sides in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction with respect to the first surface (bottom surface of 24) and the second surface (top surface of 24).
But Chen and Miki do not explicitly disclose a third thickness of a plated portion plated on the third surface is smaller than the first thickness and greater than the second thickness.
Li teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector wherein a third thickness (thickness of 10 in figure 1) of a plated portion (20) plated on the third surface (surface where 10 is pointing to in figure 1) is smaller than the first thickness and greater than the second thickness (see figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and Miki with the connector as disclosed by Li to provide wherein a third thickness of a plated portion plated on the third surface is smaller than the first thickness and greater than the second thickness, because Li teaches that varying plate thicknesses on different plated surfaces according to its intended functions is a known technique. Applying the known thickness distribution to the partially plated terminal fitting would have predictably provided the functional benefits associated with the respective plated surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the mounting portion (24, 53) of the fitting (2, 3; 5, 6) further includes a fourth surface (surface at the end face of 24) which is orthogonal to each of the first surface (bottom surface of 24), the second surface (top surface of 24), and the third surface (side surface of 24).
But Chen and Miki do not explicitly disclose wherein the fourth surface forms a fracture surface by being fractured after the mounting portion is plated after the insert molding, and a fourth thickness of a plated portion which has been plated on the fracture surface is smaller than the second thickness.
Li teaches a connector wherein the fourth surface (end face surface of 15) forms a fracture surface (end surface of 12 is fractured compared to end face of 11) by being fractured after the mounting portion is plated after the insert molding, and a fourth thickness (thickness of plated portion 30) of a plated portion (30) which has been plated on the fracture surface is smaller than the second thickness (thickness of plated portion 30 is smaller than thickness of plated portion 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and Miki with the connector as disclosed by Li to provide wherein the fourth surface forms a fracture surface by being fractured after the mounting portion is plated after the insert molding, and a fourth thickness of a plated portion which has been plated on the fracture surface is smaller than the second thickness, because Li teaches that varying plate thicknesses on different plated surfaces according to its intended functions is a known technique. Applying the known thickness distribution to the partially plated terminal fitting would have predictably provided the functional benefits associated with the respective plated surfaces. Furthermore, although neither reference expressly discloses that the plating is performed after insert molding, the recited sequence of performing the partial plating after insert molding is a product by process limitation, which merely specifies a manufacturing process for producing the claimed fitting and does not impart a structural distinction to the resulting connector. The addition of a method step in a product claim, which product is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the old product. In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969). “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11075475) in view of Miki (US 20050103761) and further in view of Kitagawa (US 20200136306).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches (figures 1 – 12, annotation) the electrical connector according to claim 1, wherein the electrical connector comprises a receptacle connector (100), the receptacle connector (100) includes the housing (1) and the fitting (2, 3) held by the housing (1), the housing (1) includes a bottom wall (annotation “bw”); a protruding wall (annotation “pw”); a peripheral wall (1331, 1321); and a fitting depression (121); the bottom wall (annotation “bw”) being arranged on a mounted portion (portion mounted onto PCB) of the mounted object (column 2, lines 22 – 27), the protruding wall (annotation “pw”; 12) protruding in a height direction of the housing (1) from the bottom wall (annotation “bw”), the peripheral wall (1331, 1321) including a longitudinal wall (1321) and a short-side wall (1331) which are provided at an interval on an outer periphery of the protruding wall (annotation “pw”; 12), and the fitting depression (121) being provided between the protruding wall (annotation “pw”; 12) and the peripheral wall (1331, 1321), and the fitting (2, 3) includes a receptacle terminal (see annotation), the receptacle terminal includes: the mounting portion (annotation “mp”); a first wall (annotation “1w”); a second wall (annotation “2w”); a third wall (annotation “3w”); a fourth wall (annotation “4w”); and a fifth wall (annotation “5w”); the first wall bending in a first height direction of the housing from the mounting portion (annotation “mp”) and extends, the second wall bending in a second height direction on an opposite side to the first height direction from a connecting part with the first wall (see figure 10, annotation), the third wall extending in the second height direction from a connecting part with the second wall and which opposes the first wall (see figure 10, annotation), the fourth wall bending toward a center of the receptacle connector from a connecting part with the third wall and extends (see figure 10, annotation), and the fifth wall bending in the first height direction from a connecting part with the fourth wall (see figure 10, annotation) and extending and being configured to elastically come into contact with a counterpart terminal (see figure 11).
Chen teaches that the terminal fitting is held by the housing, but Chen and Miki do not explicitly disclose the fitting is held by the housing since the longitudinal wall of the peripheral wall of the housing is provided in an inner area surrounded by the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall.
Kitagawa teaches (figures 5A – 5B) a connector wherein the fitting (20) is held by the housing (10) since the longitudinal wall (see wall in between 23A and 23C) of the peripheral wall (15) of the housing (10) is provided in an inner area surrounded by the first wall (23C), the second wall (23B), and the third wall (23A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen and Miki with the connector as disclosed by Kitagawa to provide wherein the fitting is held by the housing since the longitudinal wall of the peripheral wall of the housing is provided in an inner area surrounded by the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall, because Kitagawa demonstrates that this configuration is a known way of retaining a terminal fitting within a housing. Substituting one retention configuration for another predictable retention configuration would have yielded the predictable result of securing the terminal fitting in the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights