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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This inadequate translation gives rise to an unreasonable amount of issues under §112, as discussed below. While Examiner has made an attempt to evaluate the claimed subject matter in view of the prior art, it should be understood that an omission of a rejection based on prior art does not constitute an indication of allowable subject matter. Furthermore, it should also be understood that any rejection provided which is based on prior art is also based on Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed subject matter in view of the §112 rejections detailed below. Applicant should carefully review the entirety of the disclosure as filed to verify that the disclosure clearly and adequately supports any amendments provided in response to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the character of lines, numbers, and letters of all figures do not provide satisfactory reproduction characteristics as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). 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.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the terminal array direction” in lines 3-4, 6-7, 10, 14, and 17. There is no antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “the direction of mating connection” in lines 4 and 10. There is no antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “the connector width direction” in lines 9, 15, 16, and 18. There is no antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “the faces” in line 12. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation. While it may be a reference to “lateral faces” of line 9, said “lateral faces” are not clearly and positively recited and “the faces” does not carry the same meaning at “the lateral faces.” Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “the opposite outer sides” of “the terminal array range” in lines 13-14. There is no antecedent basis for either of these limitations. Even if “opposite outer sides” might carry a sufficiently understood meaning, it modifies an element (“the terminal array range”) that is not previously recited or otherwise made sufficiently clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “end supporting portions [of the socket housing] capable of supporting the plug housing toward the socket terminals” (emphasis by Examiner) in lines 14-15. This limitation is incomprehensible. It is unclear how any portion of the socket housing would support the mating plug housing “toward” the socket terminals, particularly when the socket terminals are not at any end portion of the socket housing. Thus, the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant recites “the socket housing…has the receiving space open to the opposite side from the socket terminals in the connector width direction within the terminal array range in the terminal array direction” (emphasis by Examiner) in lines 13-17. As with the previous limitation, this limitation is also incomprehensible. First, it is entirely unclear what is being referenced by “the opposite side” as recited. A receiving space is inherently opened on at least one side, and the receiving space does not appear to be open to any side which would be reasonably interpreted as “opposite” to the socket terminals. Thus, the ambiguous recitation of “the opposite side” renders the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation is not rendered any clearer by Applicant’s confusing recitation of multiple directions; there does not appear to be any opening of the receiving space along the width direction. Moreover, “the terminal array range” remains wholly indefinite as it is never once positively recited or defined. Thus, this limitation also renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant recites “the lateral faces thereof” in line 18 with respect to “the plug terminals.” Applicant does not positively recite any such lateral faces of the plug terminals and, thus, the limitation lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant recites “over at least part of the extent” in lines 11 and 19. These limitations are made relative to terminals of the socket and plug, respectively. It is, however, unclear from the claim language what is being referenced by “the extent” in both circumstances. Both instances of the language may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as having the terminals exposed “over at least part of the extent” of the respective housing or the respective terminals themselves. As such, the limitation renders the claim indefinite because there are multiple plausible interpretations for each instance of the indefinite language.
Applicant recites “a plug housing holding the plurality of plug terminals” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether each of the plug connectors has its own housing for its respective plug terminals, or whether a singular housing is provided for all of the plug terminals of all of the plug connectors. Appropriate clarification is required.
Applicant recites “the plug connector” in line 8. It is unclear which of “the plug connectors” is being referenced as Applicant has recited only one plug connector despite establishing at least two by reciting “the plug connectors.” Appropriate clarification is required.
Applicant recites “the socket terminals” in line 9. It is unclear whether this represents a subset of “a plurality of socket terminals” as recited in line 6, or whether Applicant has simply failed to appropriately reference the established element. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1, fail to cure any of the deficiencies detailed above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “the direction of mating connection,” “the opposite outer sides of the terminal array range,” and “the terminal array direction.” These limitations are deficient for the same reasons as discussed vis-à-vis claim 1 above. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, fails to cure any of the deficiencies details above, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “the end portions of the plug housing” in line 2. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Applicant also recites “the terminal array direction” and “the direction of mating connection.” These limitations are deficient for the same reasons as discussed vis-à-vis claim 1 above.
Prior Art
Due to the pervasive nature of the issues under §112 precluding a reasonable understanding of what Applicant is attempting to claim, Examiner cannot provide an analysis of the claimed subject matter in view of the prior art at this time. This is not an indication of subject matter, but instead and indication that the claims are so deficient under §112 that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained at this time. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has conducted a search based on instant FIGS 1, 3A, 3B, 6A, and 6B, in view of the confusing and indefinite language of the claims.
As best understood by Examiner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0171862 (“Chen”) is noteworthy with respect to the claims. As may be seen from FIG 1 of Chen, an electrical connector is provided with a socket connector. The socket connector includes a plurality of terminals having contact surfaces (i.e., “faces”) that face a direction which is perpendicular to both an insertion direction and a direction along which the terminals are disposed. As seen by FIG 1, the socket housing includes a receiving space, and the receiving space in open, at least partially, on a side opposite the socket terminals. As seen by FIG 7A, there is a mating pluggable connector. While not shown, it would be understood that the mating connector has a plurality of plug terminals that are disposed such that, when mated, the plug terminals come into contact with the socket terminals. Thus, Chen appears to be of patentable significance to the claims as filed, as best understood by Examiner.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0171862 (“Scherer”) is also relevant, particularly FIG 3. The top portion of the figure may be reasonably interpreted as a pluggable connector, with the lower portion being a socket connector. Both connectors have terminals, as shown and implied. The socket terminals inherently have a lateral surface (“face”) that faces into a connector width direction (along the longer horizontal axis of the connectors) that is perpendicular to both a direction along which the terminals are disposed (e.g., left to right) and the mating direction (up and down). The socket housing has end portions (in the vicinity of 268) configured to guide the plug terminal into the receiving space. As shown, the socket connector is open at two ends; at least one of these ends is opposite to the terminals. Thus, Scherer also appears to be of patentable significance to the claims as filed, as best understood by Examiner.
While further references are cited, they will not be further discussed at this time. The claimed subject matter will be reevaluated in view of the prior art upon receipt of amendments or arguments that overcome the plethora of issues discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights