DETAILED ACTION
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 1-31 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 1, the limitations that “when the coaxial cable connector is joined to the electronic device, the head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic device, when the sleeving portion bears . . . locking device” are ambiguous. The limitations are or may be interpreted as method steps of using the device. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ.2d 1548 (Bd. Patt. App. & Inter. 1990). The purpose of 35 U.S.C. 112 is to require patentee to provide others with notice of boundaries of protection provided by patent. A manufacturer or seller, at time of making or selling a device like that set forth in the claims would have no indication of whether it might later be sued for contributory infringement if the device was used in accordance with claimed process of use. Therefore the claims are not sufficiently precise that possibility of infringement may be determined with reasonable degree of certainty. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ.2d 1548 (Bd. Patt. App. & Inter. 1990); MPEP section 2173.05(P). It is not clear whether infringement would occur when the device is made/sold or only if used in the particular manner set out in the claim, and/or only when the user tightens past the point where the locking devices slide over each other, but not if the sleeve is not is tightened to the extent that the locking devices slide past each other, etc. The same rejection applies to claim 10 (“when the coaxial cable connector is joined to the electronic device, the
head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic device, when the sleeving
portion bears torque . . . .”) and claim 18 (“when joined to the electronic device, the head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic device, and the sleeving portion is tightly coupled to the head portion, when the sleeving portion bears a torque . . . .”). The same rejection applies to claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 20 which do not claim any further structure of the device, but only describe further steps of using the device.
Regarding claims 2, the limitation that “the first locking device and the second locking device can be ratchet structures” is ambiguous. “Can be” presumably means that the limitation is an optional but not necessary limitation. This is confusing since it might alternatively be interpreted to mean that the limitation is not optional.
The same rejection applies to claims 5, 19, and 28 regarding the use of “can be” in the claim. The limitations are treated as being optional and not necessarily part of the claimed invention. The same rejection applies to claim 31 regarding the limitation that the sleeving portion “may be . . . .”
Regarding claim 19, “the first locking device and the second locking device” lacks antecedent basis and is ambiguous as to what it refers to. The limitation is given little weight.
Regarding claim 30, the limitation of “positioned corresponding to the first locking device” is vague and ambiguous. It is unknown what “positioned corresponding to the first locking device” means or requires. The limitation is given little weight
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-19, 21, and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montena US 7798849 in view of Wood US 8915751.
Regarding claim 1, Montena ‘849 discloses a coaxial cable connector, suitable for mating with an end portion 16 of an electronic device, comprising:
a spindle 82, comprising a body 82,
a sleeve, coaxially sleeved onto the spindle, the sleeve comprising
a head portion (20, 20’),
a stopper portion 84,
a compression portion 86, and
a sleeving portion (22, 22’), wherein
the body portion 82 of the spindle is disposed between the head portion 20 and the stopper portion 84, wherein
the head portion of the sleeve comprises a first end (labeled E1 in annotated figure 4) below and a first locking device (24, 24’), wherein
the sleeving portion comprises a covering member (the body of the sleeving portion) and a second locking device (28, 28’), and wherein
the second locking device is disposed on the inner surface of the covering member, wherein
the first end is connected to the end portion of the electronic device, characterized in that when the coaxial cable connector is joined to the electronic device, the head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic device, when the sleeving portion bears
torque, the second locking device drives the first locking device to rotate synchronously, the rotation of the sleeving portion causing the head portion of the sleeve to move from a first
relative position to a second relative position with respect to the end portion of the electronic
device, simultaneously the body portion moves from a first position to a second position,
when the head portion reaches the second relative position, the sleeving portion continues to
bear the torque and cannot further drive the head portion to rotate, causing the second locking
device to undergo misaligned sliding with respect to the first locking device (Montena ‘849 col. 7, lines 9-40, col. 8, lines 29-60).
Montena does not disclose that the spindle comprises both a head and a body , wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other, and that both the head portion and the body portion of the spindle are disposed between the head portion and the stopper portion.
Wood discloses a coaxial connector including that the spindle (100, 250) comprises both a head 100 and a body 250, wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other (figure 10), and that both the head portion 100 and the body portion 250 of the spindle are disposed between the head portion 270 and the stopper portion (not labeled, but shown in Wood figure 10).
It would have been obvious to provide a spindle head on the Montena ‘849 device as taught in Wood, by attaching the spindle head 100 onto the end flange (Wood at 252) of the spindle body as taught in Wood. The reason would have been to improve the ground plane connection of the connector as taught in Wood.
PNG
media_image1.png
1266
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2. The coaxial cable connector of Claim 1, wherein the first locking device and the second locking device can be ratchet structures, but are not necessarily ratchet structures.
Per claim 3 when the sleeving portion bears the torque, the rotation of the second locking device driving the first locking device to rotate causes structural deformation in the radial direction of the sleeving portion, and the body portion moving from the first position to the second position.
Per claim 5, the first locking device and the second locking device can be (but are not necessarily) respectively fixedly disposed on the head portion and the sleeving portion, or the first locking device is fixedly disposed on the head portion while the second locking device is movably disposed on the sleeving portion and corresponds to the first locking device, or the second locking device is fixedly disposed on the sleeving portion while the first locking device is movably disposed on the head portion and corresponds to the second locking device.
Per claim 6, as taught in Wood, the head and the body are detachable or integrally formed.
Per claim 8, as taught in Wood, the head is conductive, such that when the coaxial cable connector is not fully installed on the end of the electronic device, the head contacts and forms an electrical connection with the end of the electronic device.
Per claim 9, the Montena ‘849 device is suitable for mating with an end portion of an electronic device, wherein the end of the electronic device has a smooth surface, a threaded surface, or a surface with irregularities.
Per claim 10, Montena ‘849 discloses a coaxial cable connector, suitable for mating with an end portion of an electronic device 16, comprising:
a spindle, comprising a body 82,
a sleeve, coaxially sleeved onto the spindle, the sleeve comprising a head portion (20), a
stopper portion 84, a compression portion 86, a sleeving portion 22, and a locking portion (24, 28), wherein the
wherein the head portion of the sleeve comprises a first end and a first locking device 24, wherein
the sleeving portion comprises a covering member and a second locking device 28, wherein the second locking device is disposed on the inner surface of the covering member, the locking portion being correspondingly disposed on at least one of the first locking device and the second locking device, the locking portion comprising at least one component, and wherein the first end is connected to the end portion of the electronic device,
characterized in that when the coaxial cable connector is joined to the electronic device, the head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic device, when the sleeving portion bears torque, the first locking device and the second locking device rotate synchronously via the locking portion's the components, the rotation of the sleeving portion
causing the head portion of the sleeve to move from a first relative position to a second relative
position with respect to the end portion of the electronic device, simultaneously the body
portion moves from a first position to a second position, when the head portion reaches the
second relative position, the sleeving portion continues to bear the torque and cannot further
drive the head portion to rotate, causing at least one of the first locking device and the second
locking device and the components to undergo misaligned sliding (Montena ‘849 col. 7, lines 9-40, col. 8, lines 29-60).
Montena does not disclose that the spindle comprises both a head and a body , wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other, and that both the head portion and the body portion of the spindle are disposed between the head portion and the stopper portion.
Wood discloses a coaxial connector including that the spindle (100, 250) comprises both a head 100 and a body 250, wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other (figure 10), and that both the head portion 100 and the body portion 250 of the spindle are disposed between the head portion 270 and the stopper portion (not labeled, but shown in Wood figure 10).
It would have been obvious to provide a spindle head on the Montena ‘849 device as taught in Wood, by attaching the spindle head 100 onto the end flange (Wood at 252) of the spindle body as taught in Wood. The reason would have been to improve the ground plane connection of the connector as taught in Wood.
Per claim 11, the components are selected from positioning pillars, spring plates (28), ratchet teeth (28’), and combinations thereof.
Per claim 12, when the sleeving portion bears the torque, the synchronous rotation of the first locking device and the second locking device via at least one of the sleeving portion and the components of the locking portion causes structural deformation (see figures 7 and 8) in the radial direction of the sleeving portion, and the body portion moving from the first position to the second position.
Per claim 14, as taught in Wood, the head and the body are detachable or integrally formed.
Per claim 16, as taught in Wood, the head 100 is conductive, such that when the coaxial cable connector is not fully installed on the end of the electronic device, the head contacts and forms an electrical connection with the end of the electronic device.
Per claim 17, the Montena ‘849 device is suitable for mating with an end portion of an electronic device, wherein the end of the electronic device has a smooth surface, a threaded surface, or a surface with irregularities.
Per claim 18, Montena ‘849 discloses a coaxial cable connector (see discussion regarding claim 1 for identification of claimed elements), suitable for mating with an end portion of an electronic
device, comprising:
a spindle, comprising a body,
a sleeve, coaxially sleeved onto the spindle, the sleeve comprising a head portion, a stopper portion, a compression portion, and a sleeving portion,
and the head portion of the sleeve includes a first end and a second end, the sleeving portion includes a covering member and a third end, wherein the third end is correspondingly connected to the second end, and the first end is correspondingly connected to the end portion
of the electronic device, and the coaxial cable connector is characterized in that when joined
to the electronic device, the head portion electrically contacts the end portion of the electronic
device, and the sleeving portion is tightly coupled to the head portion, when the sleeving
portion bears a torque, the rotation of the sleeving portion drives the head portion to rotate
synchronously, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move from a first relative position
to a second relative position with respect to the end portion of the electronic device, while the
body portion moves from a first position to a second position (Montena ‘849 col. 7, lines 9-40, col. 8, lines 29-60).
Montena does not disclose that the spindle comprises both a head and a body , wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other, and that both the head portion and the body portion of the spindle are disposed between the head portion and the stopper portion.
Wood discloses a coaxial connector including that the spindle (100, 250) comprises both a head 100 and a body 250, wherein the head and the body are coaxially sleeved onto each other (figure 10), and that both the head portion 100 and the body portion 250 of the spindle are disposed between the head portion 270 and the stopper portion (not labeled, but shown in Wood figure 10).
It would have been obvious to provide a spindle head on the Montena ‘849 device as taught in Wood, by attaching the spindle head 100 onto the end flange (Wood at 252) of the spindle body as taught in Wood. The reason would have been to improve the ground plane connection of the connector as taught in Wood.
Per 19 a first locking device and a second locking device can be (but are not necessarily) ratchet structures.
Per claim 21, the head and the body are detachable or integrally formed.
Per claim 23, the head is conductive, such that when the coaxial cable connector is not fully installed on the end of the electronic device, the head contacts and forms an electrical connection with the end of the electronic device.
Per claim 24, the end of the electronic device has a smooth surface, a threaded surface, or a surface with irregularities.
Per claim 25, the second end of the head portion comprises a first locking device 24.
Per claim 26, the third end of the sleeving portion comprises a second locking device 28.
Per claim 27 third end of the sleeving portion comprises a second locking device 28 corresponding to the first locking device 24.
Per claim 28 the first locking device and the second locking device can be (but are not necessarily) ratchet structures.
Per claim 29 the sleeve further comprises a locking portion 28, and the locking portion comprises at least one component.
Per claim 30, the sleeve further comprises a locking portion, the locking portion further comprises at least one component.
Per claim 31, Montena discloses that the structure of the second end of said head portion and the third end of said sleeving portion may be (but are not necessarily), complementary structures, and the edges of the second end and the third end may be (but are not necessarily) polygonal, circular, or other shapes.
Claims 4, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montena ‘849 and Wood in view of Montena et al. US 11283217 (“Montena ‘217”).
Regarding claim 4, Montena ‘849 does not explicitly disclose that when the sleeving portion bears a force opposite to the torque, the sleeving portion drives the head portion to rotate, the second locking device drives the first locking device to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
Montena ‘217 discloses a torque sleeve wherein when the sleeving portion 130 bears a force opposite to the tightening torque, the sleeving portion 130 drives the head portion 110 to rotate, the second locking device 144 drives the first locking device 124 to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
It would have been obvious to replace the Montena ‘849 teeth 128’ and grooves 24’ with the teeth 144 and 124 as taught in Montena ‘217 (which have a gentle ramped portion and a more steep vertical portion), such that the overtightening is prevented and the coupled nut and device are decoupled when the sleeve is rotated in the untightening direction, as taught in Montena ‘217 (see e.g. col. 6, line 55 – col. 7 line 60). The reason would have been to facilitate easy decoupling and prevent overtightening as taught in Montena ‘217. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Montena ‘849 does not explicitly disclose that when the sleeving portion bears a force opposite to the torque, the sleeving portion drives the head portion to rotate, the second locking device drives the first locking device to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
Montena ‘217 discloses a torque sleeve wherein when the sleeving portion 130 bears a force opposite to the tightening torque, the sleeving portion 130 drives the head portion 110 to rotate, the second locking device 144 drives the first locking device 124 to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
It would have been obvious to replace the Montena ‘849 teeth 128’ and grooves 24’ with the teeth 144 and 124 as taught in Montena ‘217 (which have a gentle ramped portion and a more steep vertical portion), such that the overtightening is prevented and the coupled nut and device are decoupled when the sleeve is rotated in the untightening direction, as taught in Montena ‘217 (see e.g. col. 6, line 55 – col. 7 line 60). The reason would have been to facilitate easy decoupling and prevent overtightening as taught in Montena ‘217. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Montena ‘849 does not explicitly disclose that when the sleeving portion bears a force opposite to the torque, the sleeving portion drives the head portion to rotate, the second locking device drives the first locking device to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
Montena ‘217 discloses a torque sleeve wherein when the sleeving portion 130 bears a force opposite to the tightening torque, the sleeving portion 130 drives the head portion 110 to rotate, the second locking device 144 drives the first locking device 124 to rotate without relative movement, causing the head portion of the sleeve to move away from the second relative position and towards the first relative position.
It would have been obvious to replace the Montena ‘849 teeth 128’ and grooves 24’ with the teeth 144 and 124 as taught in Montena ‘217 (which have a gentle ramped portion and a more steep vertical portion), such that the overtightening is prevented and the coupled nut and device are decoupled when the sleeve is rotated in the untightening direction, as taught in Montena ‘217 (see e.g. col. 6, line 55 – col. 7 line 60). The reason would have been to facilitate easy decoupling and prevent overtightening as taught in Montena ‘217. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15, and 22 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.
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
