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). No new matter should be entered.
Per claim 1, “the tower portion of the housing comprises a groove extending in the vertical direction and beyond the mounting face” following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. Rule1.75(d)(1). The terms and the phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See MPEP 2173.03. “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). In particular, the limitation of “the tower portion of the housing comprises a groove extending in the vertical direction and beyond the mounting face” lacks clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. Although the feature is repeated in the specification (¶ 0023, 0006), the feature is never clearly identified in the detailed disclosure such that the meaning of the limitation can be determined. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the device as claimed, including that “the groove is a first groove disposed on a side of the slot” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the device as claimed, including “extender comprising a first portion extending through the groove of the tower portion and a second portion disposed on the tower portion” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the method as claimed including “a tower portion extending from an end of the body and having a groove extending beyond the mounting face of the body, and a slot recessed from the mating face of the body and extending into the tower portion; providing an extender comprising a first portion and a second portion; and inserting the second portion of the extender into the groove of the housing” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The following discussion applies to claims 2, 4 and 18.
(A) The breadth of the claims: The claims are specific. The specification gives no indication of how the claimed device/method would be made or structured.
(B) The nature of the invention is well known. The specification gives no indication of how the claimed device/method would be made or structured and the nature of the invention does suggest how the invention as claimed could be made.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art does not disclose the claimed invention.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: It is not apparent that one with ordinary skill could make the claimed invention.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The art is highly predictable. Experimentation would not result in the claimed invention.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: No direction is provided by the inventor.
(G) The existence of working examples: No example is provided.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Experimentation is unlikely to result in the claimed invention.
MPEP section 2164.01(a); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niu et al. US 10224653 (“Niu”). Regarding claim 1, Niu discloses a memory card connector comprising:
a housing 10 comprising a body extending in a longitudinal direction and having an end,
a tower portion (13, 40) extending from the end of the body in a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and a slot 103 extending from the body to the tower portion; and
a plurality of conductive elements 20 held in the housing, each of the plurality of
conductive elements comprising a mating contact portion 22 curving into the slot and a tail
portion 23 extending out of a mounting face 102 of the housing,
wherein the tower portion of the housing comprises a groove (defined by and between legs 42, see figures 4 and 8) extending in the vertical direction and beyond the mounting face.
Claims 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan US 7955099.
Regarding claim 10, Tan discloses an electrical connector comprising:
a housing 10 comprising a body having a mating face and a mounting face, and
a tower (102, 13, 14) extending from an end of the body and beyond the mating face of the body of the housing; and
a latch 12 movably coupled to the housing between a locked position and an unlocked
position and comprising a rib 124 configured to extend through an opening (labeled OP in annotated figure 10B below) of the tower at the locked position.
PNG
media_image1.png
1274
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 11, the tower comprises a tower portion 102 extending from the end of the body; and an extender (13, 14) at least partially disposed on the tower portion and comprising the opening.
Per claim 12 the housing comprises a slot (labeled Slot below) extending from the body to the tower;
the tower portion of the tower comprises a groove (labeled GRV below) disposed on a side of the slot; and
the extender of the tower comprises a first portion 142 extending through the groove and a second portion 143 disposed on the groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
1266
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 17, the body is elongated in a longitudinal direction; the tower is elongated in a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; and
the tower is not wider than the body in a transverse direction perpendicular to both the
longitudinal direction and the vertical direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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
