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
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). More specifically, the dashed lines in FIG 7 that correspond to the sectional views in FIGS 8 and 9 are difficult to differentiate from the surrounding elements and may not be clearly reproduced.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "60" and "90" have both been used to designate “a second insulator.” As best understood by Examiner, in view of the claims as filed, numeral 90 should instead represent “a third insulator” as recited by claim 15. If this is not the case, then the figures fail to depict the claimed “third insulator” and would be objected to for failure to show this claimed subject matter.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the metal foil surrounding the cable insulation layer (as recited by claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 the first paragraph 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.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a metal foil layer of the twinax cable disposed between a first layer corresponding to the first and second conductors and a second layer corresponding to the insulative covering of the conductors, does not reasonably provide enablement for a metal foil surrounding (“disposed around”) the insulative layer as recited by claim 3. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Enablement, including scope of enablement, is evaluated under the Wands factors. Factor (A) pertains to the breadth of the claims, and “the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.” MPEP §2164.08. Here, the scope of “protection sought” seems to include a metal foil tape that is “wrapped around” the “insulator.” While it is not readily apparent what “insulator” is being referenced, it is presumably the cable insulator. Thus, claim 3 seemingly recites the twin-ax cables as having an exterior surface comprised of a metal foil tape. The disclosure as filed does not appear to support such a configuration.
The only discussion of “metal foil” in the Specification as filed is found in paragraphs [0026] and [0027]. Para. [0026] provides that aluminum or copper foil may form “a shielding layer” of the cable. Para. [0027] provides that the ground bars “wrap around the exposed area of copper foil of the cable and contact with the metal foil.” A metal foil which surrounds an outermost insulation layer of a cable would have “an exposed area” corresponding to the full length of the cable. Indeed, Applicant does not include any depiction of the disclosed and claimed metal foil.
Thus, it is evident that the instant disclosure does not reasonably disclose, contemplate, or otherwise enable “a metal foil tape wrapped around the insulator.” Instead, it appears that the foil tape contemplated by the disclosure as filed is instead an inner shielding layer of the cable. This interpretation is consistent with the Drawings, which depict only a cable and no external metal foil, as well as the Specification, which implies that the metal foil is covered by another material (e.g., an insulation layer) such that the metal foil must be “exposed” from the other material before it can be placed in contact with the ground bars.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that factor (A) effectively mandates a finding of non-enablement. The scope of protection sought by the instant claim clearly exceeds the scope of the disclosure.
Factors (B) and (C) relate to the nature of the invention and state of the prior art. The nature of the invention is “the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains” and provides “the backdrop to determine the state of the art and the level of skill possessed by one skilled in the art.” MPEP §2164.05(a). In general, prior art disclosure of twin-axial cables appear to only disclose provision of a shield (i.e., “a metal foil”) within the insulating layer of the cable. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,483,020 where shielding layer 22 is disposed within the outermost insulating layer 24. While the reference discloses dielectric insulating layers 18 and 20 being surrounded by shielding layer 22, there is clearly provision of multiple layers of insulation, where the outermost layer of the cable is insulation and not metal foil. This is in contrast to the instant claim, which seemingly suggests the outermost layer is the metal foil. Examiner is unable to find any prior art that discloses twin-ax cable with a metal foil exterior; thus, it does not appear that the state of the prior art does not provide meaningful evidence in favor of predictability, thus requiring additional direction and/or guidance to make and use the claimed subject matter. Examiner therefore finds that factors (B) and (C) favor a finding of non-enablement with respect to the full scope of the claimed subject matter.
Factor (D), the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, is frequently difficult to evaluate. Here, the prior art suggests that wrapping a metal foil layer around the exterior insulating layer of a twin-ax cable is not well-known; as such, it seems unlikely that one of ordinary skill would simply “understand” how to make and use the claimed invention when the structures recited by claim 3 are seemingly inconsistent with that which was known. As one of ordinary skill is unlikely to simply “understand” how the claimed subject matter works as alleged, and as the disclosure as filed provides no additional discussion that is consistent with the claimed subject matter, Examiner finds that factor (D) favors a finding of non-enablement.
Factors (E) and (F) are the level of predictability in the art and amount of direction provided by the inventor, respectively. The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). Since the state of the art seemingly indicates that wrapping of a twin-axial cable with a metal foil is neither known nor commonplace, Applicant’s burden of disclosure is significantly increased.
As discussed above, the instant disclosure is virtually silent with respect to a metal foil placed externally relative to a cable insulation layer. Indeed, the Specification and Drawings as filed seemingly contradict this configuration as the Specification refers to “an exposed area” of the foil, suggesting that the metal foil is largely concealed. A metal foil surrounding the outer-most insulating layer of a cable would not be mostly concealed, but instead would be fully unconcealed.
Since the prior art does not provide a basis for reasonably extrapolating how to make and use the claimed subject matter, and since the instant disclosure fails to provide any meaningful direction, Examiner finds that factors (E) and (F) strongly favor a finding of non-enablement.
Factor (G) is the existence of working examples; as discussed above, Applicant provides no working examples. The Specifications and Drawings do not provide any discussion or depiction of an external metal foil which surrounds the cable insulator layer. At best, Applicant may have enablement for an internal metal foil layer which surrounds the conductors; this would at least be supported by common knowledge in the art and the instant disclosure of “an exposed area” of the metal foil (which, as discussed above, implies that the foil is an internal layer). Since the disclosure provides no working examples for an external layer of metal foil as presently claimed, Examiner finds that factor (G) favors a finding of non-enablement.
Factor (H) pertains to the quantity of experimentation required. In view of the discussion above, Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would need to perform an undue amount of experimentation to make and use the claimed subject matter and, thus, factor (H) favors a finding of non-enablement.
As all of the factors favor a finding of non-enablement, Examiner concludes that the full scope of claim 3 is not enabled by the disclosure as filed. At best, the disclosure provides support for a metal foil layer disposed between the claimed cable conductors and the cable insulator. While the metal foil may surround additional insulative layers of the cable, the full scope of the present claim includes one or more embodiments where the metal foil is the outermost layer of the cable, and such embodiments are not enabled. Thus, for purposes of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted as if it instead recited “a metal foil tape wrapped around the first and second conductors.” Appropriate clarification and/or amendments are required. Claims 4-5 depend from claim 3, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 2-12 and 19 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 2, Applicant recites “the cable” in line 1 of the claim as filed. It is unclear what “the cable” refers to here since, as recited by claim 1, there are a plurality of cables.” Thus, claim 2 indefinite under §112(b) As best understood by Examiner, claim 2 seeks to recite “wherein each of the plurality of [twin-ax] cables has a first end and a second end….” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “a cable insulator disposed around the first and second conductors, and a metal foil tape wrapped around the insulator.” It is unclear whether each of the first and second conductors have a respective cable insulator, or whether a singular insulator is provided for both conductors. “[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008). Thus, the limitation renders claim 2 indefinite under §112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “a first ground bar and a second ground bar together wrapping around respective ends of the plurality of twinax cables” (emphasis by Examiner). It is unclear which “respective ends” are being contemplated by Examiner because there is no corresponding disclosure. In order to be “together wrapping around” an end of the cable, the first and second ground bar must both be provided on the same end of the cable. A first ground bar provided at a respective first end of the cable cannot “together wrap around” the cable with a second ground bar provided at a respective second end of the cable. Indeed, the only configuration having any meaningful support in the disclosure (in context of the remaining elements of claim 6) as filed is a first ground bar and a second ground bar together wrapping around each first end of the plurality of twin ax cables.
As shown by the FIGS, first and second ground bars 72 and 74 wrap around the same end of the plurality of twinax cables. While one or more additional sets of first and second ground bars may be provided at the other end(s) of the plurality of twinax cables, there is no support or suggestion that the first ground bar is provided at a first end of the cable while the second ground bar is provided at the second end of the cable. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 7-12 depend from claim 6, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons. For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as if it recited “a first ground bar and a second ground bar collectively wrapping around a first end of each of the plurality of twin-ax cables, and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first insulator and has a plurality of ground contact portions alternately interposed bin the row of mating contact portions.”
Regarding claim 10, Applicant recites “an exposed area of copper foil of the cables and contact with the metal foil” (emphasis added). As a first issue, the limitation “the metal foil” is completely lacking in proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. None of claims 1, 2, 6, or 9 recite “a metal foil.” The first instance of such a foil is found in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 cannot properly depend from any of claims 1, 2, 6, or 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Moreover, the disclosure provides that the metal foil may be comprised of copper such that the metal foil is a copper foil but does not appear to suggest or otherwise disclose the provision of both a copper foil and an additional metal foil within the twinaxial cables. Thus, it is unclear whether the recitation of claim 10 simply fails to clearly convey the disclosed subject matter or, instead, attempts to recite subject matter not adequately or clearly disclosed by the disclosure as filed. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be interpreted as if it instead recited “wherein the raised portions of the first…and second ground bar[s] are combined together to wrap around an exposed metal foil of the cables, wherein the metal foil is a copper foil.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, fails to cure its deficiencies, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites “wherein the mating contact portions and mounting contact portions are insert molded with the first insulators and second insulators.” It is unclear how the mating contact portions, which are previously recited as being retained by the first insulator, might then be insert molded with both the mounting contact portions and the second insulator. The same may be said of the inverse arrangement. Moreover, it is unclear which “mating” and “mounting” contact portions are being referenced in the insert molding limitation. Claim 1 establishes “mating contact portions” and “mounting contact portions” while claim 12 recites further instances of “mating contact portions” and “mounting contact portions” that belong to “a plurality of side-band contacts” which are effectively recited as being wholly separate from the rows recited in claim 1.
As a result of these issues of indefinite subject matter, Examiner is unable to reasonably determine the scope of subject matter which Applicant considers to be the invention. When such a scope cannot be ascertained, the subject matter cannot be evaluated in view of the prior art. As such, Examiner is unable to evaluate the subject matter of claim 12 in view of the prior art at this time. THIS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter of claim 12 will be evaluated in view of prior art upon receipt of appropriate amendments that overcome the issues of indefinite subject matter identified above.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites the mating and mounting contact portions “are insert molded with the first insulator.” As with claim 12, it is unclear how the mounting contact portions, previously recited in claim 12 as being retained in the second insulator, would then be insert molded with the first insulator.
Setting aside the above, the claim is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “firstly” is meant to imply a reordering of the steps recited in claim 18 or meant to instead refer back to the established limitations. The same may be said of “the cables are soldered to the mating contact portions….”
For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be interpreted as if it instead recited “wherein the step of retaining a row of mating contact portions with a first insulator comprises overmolding the first insulator onto the row of mating contact portions; wherein the step of retaining a row of mounting contact portions with a second insulator comprises overmolding the second insulator onto the row of mounting contact portions; wherein interconnecting a plurality of twin-ax cables between the row of mating contact portions and the row of mounting contact portions comprises soldering the cables to the mating contact portions; and wherein a first ground bar is laser welded to a second ground bar.”
Appropriate corrections are required.
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, 13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0090491 (“Dunwoody”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0022103 (“Murata”).
Regarding claim 1, Dunwoody discloses:
A contact assembly for an electrical connector (FIG 2), comprising:
a row (see para. [0020] discussing configuration in rows) of mating contact portions (signal contacts 46) and a first housing (either of housing 32 or support body 44 of contact modules 34 may be reasonably interpreted as “a first housing”) retaining the row of contact mating portions (as seen in FIG 2);
a row (see para. [0020]) of mounting contact portions (unlabeled in FIG 2; see para. [0022]) and a second housing (52) retaining the row of mounting contact portions (as inferred from FIG 2 and para. [0022]); and
a plurality of twin-ax cables (12; see para. [0015]) interconnected between the rows of mating contact portions and the row of mounting contact portions (as seen in FIG 2, indicated by dashed lines).
Dunwoody does not explicitly disclose the housings being insulative housings.
Murata discloses a connector having rows of mating contact portions (contacts 30, see para. [0033]) and mounting contacts (contacts 31; see para. [0033]) connected via twin axial cables (20A), wherein the contacts are retained within housing elements (contacts 30 are retained in housing 13a; contacts 31 retained in housing 16) and wherein the housing elements are insulative (para. [0029]).
While Murata does not elaborate on why insulative materials are used, but those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that an insulative housing prevents undesired electrical connection between contacts retained by the housing and external elements to which an electrical connection is not desired; additionally, the insulative housing may perform a shielding function, mitigating some of the noise that might be generated by the contacts and cables.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Dunwoody by making housings 32 and 52 of insulative materials, as is done by Murata, for the purposes of preventing undesired electrical connection between contacts retained by the housing and external elements to which an electrical connection is not desired.
Regarding claim 13, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a pair of side plates (when support bodies 44, 54 are the respective housings of mating and mounting contact portions, housings 32, 52 may be interpreted as “side plates” having holes, as seen in FIG 2, for engaging a respective positioning end of the first and second insulators (as would be reasonably inferred by those of ordinary skill).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant effectively recites the subject matter of claim 1, wherein: the row of mating contact portions comprises an upper row and a lower row, both retained by the first insulator; the row of mounting contact portions comprises a first row of mounting contacts retained by the second insulator and a second row of mounting contacts retained by a third insulator; and the upper row of mating contacts is connected to the first row of mounting contacts by a first row of twinax cables and the lower row of mating contacts is connected to the second row of mounting contacts by a second row of twinax cables.
As detailed above, the first combination discloses the limitations of claim 1. While claim 1 interprets the second insulative housing to be housing 52, Dunwoody may also be interpreted as disclosing a plurality of mating and mounting housings, the plurality of mating housings indicated by contact modules 34 and the plurality of mounting housings indicated by contact modules 54. When the device of Dunwoody is rotated 90 degrees in either direction, contact modules 34 and 54 become vertically stacked rows rather than horizontally arranged columns.
Thus, it is evident that Dunwoody further discloses:
upper and lower rows of mating contact portions, indicated by contacts 46 provided in contact modules 34, wherein all contact modules 34 are retained by a first housing 32;
first and second rows of mounting contact portions, indicated by contact modules 54 (which hold the unlabeled mounting contacts discussed in para. [0022]), wherein the first row of mounting contact portions is retained by a second insulative housing (i.e., a first one of contact modules 54) and the second row of mounting contact portions is retained by a third insulative housing (i.e., a second one of the contact modules 54);
wherein the upper row is connected to the first row via a first row of twinax cables (as shown by FIG 2, see also paras. [0012] and [0015]) and the lower row is connected to the second row via a second row of twinax cables (Id.).
Examiner therefore finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the first combination discloses the limitations of claim 15 and Dunwoody further discloses a pair of side plates (housings 32, 52 inherently comprise “side plates” forming at least two of the four external sides of each housing) engaging respective ends of the first, second, and third insulators (a side plate which is part of the housing, i.e., “the insulator,” inherently engages its corresponding end as well as corresponding ends of the other perpendicular sides).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant merely recites a method of assembling the contact assembly of claim 1. As detailed above, the first combination discloses the contact assembly of claim 1. One of ordinary skill, having the disclosure of Dunwoody which discloses, at minimum, a contact assembly which is configured to be assembled in the manner depicted by the drawings of Dunwoody, would find a corresponding method of assembly to be obvious.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Dunwoody only explicitly discloses a method of first interconnecting first and second ends of a plurality of twinaxial cables to the mating and mounting contacts, respectively (i.e., reversing the order, or otherwise changing the sequence of adding components), modifying Dunwoody to do such would nonetheless be obvious to one of ordinary skill.
The courts have previously held that “reversing the order of the prior art process steps” renders claims prima facie obvious1 and that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results…”2. Here, it cannot be reasonably asserted that Dunwoody does not inherently disclose all three steps of the instant claim. The sole question is whether Dunwoody inherently discloses the specific order of steps recited by claim 18. In view of Burhans and Rubin, it is evident that the specific order does not carry patentably weight unless a new or unexpected result is obtained. There is no apparent disclosure, teaching, or other indication that the instant order of steps is critical or otherwise patentably significant. The three steps recited, regardless of their order, result in production of the same connector.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Dunwoody to first retain contacts within their respective housings before interconnecting the plurality of twinax cables because the courts have made clear that selecting any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious unless new or unexpected results are produced and, here, no such results would be produced by changing the inherent order of steps disclosed by Dunwoody.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194911 (“Ayzenberg”).
Regarding claim 2, the first combination discloses the limitation of claim 1 and further discloses the cable having a first and second end (see Dunwoody, FIG 2) and inherently discloses the twinax wire being drainless (no disclosure or depiction of a drain wire) but does not disclose the wire being specifically 31 AWG.
Ayzenberg discloses a high speed (see, e.g., para. [0040]) electrical cable assembly utilizing one or more drainless twinax cables (see FIGS 2A, 2B, depicting a drainless twinax cable; see FIGS 6A, 6B, depicting the connection of such twinax cable to a connector element) and further discloses that such cables may have a gauge ranging from 34 AWG to 24 AWG.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Dunwoody such that the generic twinaxial cable therein is 32 AWG cable because the prior art (Ayzenberg) recognizes 32 AWG drainless twinaxial cable as being suitable for use in high-speed electrical connectors (such as that contemplated by Dunwoody).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination, further in view of Ayzenberg (“the second combination”), discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and Dunwoody further discloses each cable having a first and a second conductor extending from the first end to the second end (inherent to the disclosure of “twinaxial cable,” see para. [0015]), a cable insulator disposed around the first and second conductor and a metal foil disposed between the conductors and the cable insulator (para. [0016]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and Dunwoody further discloses the use of aluminum or copper as a material “to provide a predetermined amount of electrical shielding and/or to provide…a predetermined electrical conductivity” (see para. [0031]) but does not explicitly disclose the use of copper for the metal foil of Dunwoody.
Since Dunwoody discloses the foil being used as “an electrically conductive foil” surrounding conductors of the twinax cable (para. [0016]) and further discloses copper being suitable for providing “a predetermined electrical conductivity,” Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrically conductive cable of Dunwoody to utilize copper material because Dunwoody explicitly recognizes the suitability of copper for such a use.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the second combination as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0234291 (“Zerebilov”).
Regarding claim 6, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose a first ground bar and a second ground bar together wrapping around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables, and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first insulator and has a plurality of ground contact portions alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions.
Zerebilov discloses an electrical connector having a plurality of drainless twin-axial cables (FIG 5:310, see para. [0075]) connected a first row of mating contact portions (214) retained by a first insulator (306, see para. [0074]). Zerebilov further discloses a first ground bar (308) and a second ground bar (300) together wrapping around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables (as seen in FIGS 5 and 6B), wherein the second ground bar (300) is retained to the first insulator (306, as shown by FIG 5; see also para. [0074]) and has a plurality of ground contact portions (see para. [0078] discussing ground terminals in context of FIG 5) alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions (as may be seen and/or inferred from FIGS 5-7). Zerebilov establishes that interconnection of the ground terminals in the manner disclosed therein may “reduce resonance modes of the ground portion of the plurality of terminals.” Those of ordinary skill would also appreciate that the first ground bar (308) of Zerebilov provides a necessary grounding connection between the twin-axial cable and the connector.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Dunwoody to include the grounding plates of Zerebilov in the configuration disclosed by Zerebilov for the purposes of reducing resonance modes of the ground portion of terminals and simultaneously providing a necessary grounding connection between the twin-axial cable and the electrical connector.
Regarding claim 7, the second combination further in view of Zerebilov (“the third combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and Zerebilov further discloses the plurality of ground contact portions being formed integrally with the second ground bar (see FIG 5).
Regarding claim 8, the third combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and Zerebilov further discloses the plurality of ground contact portions being laser welded to the second ground bar. In para. [0044] Zerebilov states that “[i]n some embodiments, a ground conductor may be laser welded to a ground portion of the plurality of connectors.” The second grounding plate (300) of Zerebilov may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as “a ground conductor” and the ground terminals (among terminals 214) may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as “a ground portion of the plurality of connectors.”
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Here, the disclosure of Zerebilov provides a reasonably and rational basis for a person having ordinary skill to conclude or otherwise infer that ground terminals (among terminals 214) may be laser welded to a ground conductor (300).
Examiner therefore finds that Zerebilov inherently discloses an embodiment wherein ground terminals are laser welded to a second ground bar. Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date), to modify Dunwoody to include the ground terminals of Zerebilov, which are laser welded to a grounding plate of Zerebilov, as contemplated by para. [0044] of Zerebilov, for the purposes of reducing resonance modes of the ground portion of terminals and simultaneously providing a necessary grounding connection between the twin-axial cable and the electrical connector.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the second combination as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0366017 (“Blackburn”).
Regarding claim 6, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose a first ground bar and a second ground bar together wrapping around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables, and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first insulator and has a plurality of ground contact portions alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions.
Blackburn discloses an electrical connector having a plurality of twinax cables (FIG 4:150) connected to (as shown by FIG 4) a plurality of mating contact portions (154) retained by a first housing (106). Blackburn further discloses a first ground bar (FIG 4, upper instance of 190) and a second ground bar (lower instance of 190) together wrapping (see FIGS 4 and 6) around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables (as shown) and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first housing (as may be inferred from FIGS 4 and 6, both ground bars are retained by housing 106 when the connector is assembled as shown by FIG 6) and has a plurality of ground contact portions (ground beams 156) alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions (as may be inferred from the depiction of FIG 6, where ground beams 156 are interposed between twinax cables, thus implying that the ground beams are interposed between adjacent non-ground terminals in the row of mating contact portions).
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the grounding plates of Blackburn in the configuration disclosed by Blackburn for the purposes of reducing resonance modes of the ground portion of terminals3 and simultaneously providing a necessary grounding connection between the twin-axial cable and the electrical connector4.
Regarding claim 9, the second combination further in view of Blackburn (“the fourth combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and further discloses each of the first and second ground bars including a plurality of raised portions and a plurality of flat portions connecting adjacent raised portions (see FIG 4).
Regarding claim 10, the fourth combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and Blackburn further discloses the raised portions of the first and second ground bars collectively wrapping around an exposed shield (184) of the twinax cable. While Blackburn does not disclose the material or configuration of shield 184, Dunwoody establishes that the twinax cables are surrounded by “an electrically conductive coil” (para. [0016]) and further establishes that “copper” is a material which may be “selected to provide a predetermined amount of electrical shielding and/or…a predetermined electrical conductivity.” Thus, Dunwoody may be reasonably interpreted as further disclosing the cable as comprising “a metal foil, wherein the metal foil is a copper foil.”
Thus, when properly construed as a combination of references, the fourth combination discloses the raised portions of the first and second ground bar as wrapping around an electrically conductive shield of the twinax cable, wherein the electrically conductive shield is a metal foil, specifically a copper foil, selected for its predetermined electrical conductivity and/or electrical shielding properties. Examiner therefore finds that the fourth combination discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the fourth combination discloses the limitations of claim 10 as set forth above and Blackburn further discloses the raised portion of at least one of the first and the second ground bar being connected to the metal foil of the cable by laser welding or soldering (para. [0054]).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first combination as applied to claims 13 and 15 above, as relevant, and further in view of Blackburn.
Regarding claim 14, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 13 above but does not disclose heat staking of the positioning ends after securement within the holes.
Blackburn discloses a housing for an electrical connector having a plurality of sides, including upper and lower shells 172, 178, wherein the plurality of sides are secured together by heat staking after the sides are secured to each other. Blackburn evidences the fact that heat staking is merely one well-known option, among many other options, for securing two elements together. Stated another way, Blackburn recognizes that heat staking is an appropriate means for securely joining two elements together.
As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Dunwoody by heat staking the positioning ends of the insulators after they are securing in holes of the pair of side plates for the purposes of more securely joining the side plates to the housings.
Regarding claim 16, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 above but does not explicitly disclose a first ground bar and a second ground bar together wrapping around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables, and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first insulator and has a plurality of ground contact portions alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions.
Blackburn discloses an electrical connector having a plurality of twinax cables (FIG 4:150) connected to (as shown by FIG 4) a plurality of mating contact portions (154) retained by a first housing (106). Blackburn further discloses a first ground bar (FIG 4, upper instance of 190) and a second ground bar (lower instance of 190) together wrapping (see FIGS 4 and 6) around a first end of each of the plurality of twinax cables (as shown) and wherein the second ground bar is retained to the first housing (as may be inferred from FIGS 4 and 6, both ground bars are retained by housing 106 when the connector is assembled as shown by FIG 6) and has a plurality of ground contact portions (ground beams 156) alternately interposed in the row of mating contact portions (as may be inferred from the depiction of FIG 6, where ground beams 156 are interposed between twinax cables, thus implying that the ground beams are interposed between adjacent non-ground terminals in the row of mating contact portions).
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the grounding plates of Blackburn in the configuration disclosed by Blackburn for the purposes of reducing resonance modes of the ground portion of terminals5 and simultaneously providing a necessary grounding connection between the twin-axial cable and the electrical connector6.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerebilov in view of Dunwoody.
Regarding claim 19, Zerebilov discloses a method of assembling a high-frequency midboard connector by overmolding a first insulator (FIG 5:306) over a row of mating contact portions (214; see para. [0074]) and interconnecting a plurality of twinax cables (310) to the mating contact portions (see FIG 5) via soldering (para. [0045]; “[c]able conductors…may be welded or soldered to solder tails of each of the plurality of terminals”). Zerebilov discloses that the other end of twinax cables 310 may be connected to “an I/O connector 20,” but does not elaborate on the structure of connector 20. Thus, the difference between Zerebilov and the instant claim may be characterized as a difference in the second connector connected to the second end of the twinax cables.
Dunwoody discloses an electrical cable assembly (as detailed above) where connectors at both ends of the twinax cables “are substantially identical to one another” (para. [0021]). While Dunwoody does not seem to disclose why the connectors are selected to be the same, those of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that the specific connector configuration for termination of a cable or cable group will depend, at least in part, on how the connector of the second end will connect to or otherwise engage with its respective mating connector. Thus, a scenario wherein the person of ordinary skill seeks to bridge two midboard connections might require two connectors of the type disclosed by Zerebilov. Stated another way, Dunwoody stands for the proposition and teaching that both connectors (e.g., “plug sockets”) at opposing ends of a cable may be made identical in order to transmit information between identical mating sockets.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to modify Zerebilov to replace I/O connector 20 with a connector identical to that shown in FIGS 5-7 of Zerebilov for the purposes of providing a connection between two identical mid-board sockets in order to transmit information between the two identical mid-board sockets.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zerebilov in view of Dunwoody (“the fifth combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 18 and further discloses overmolding the first housing onto the row of mating contacts (para. [0074]), overmolding the second housing onto the row of mounting contacts (inherent to the modification made in the rejection of claim 18, above), and interconnecting a plurality of twinax cables between the mating and mounting portions (Zerebilov, para. [0045]), followed by providing a first ground bar (308) which is laser welded (para. [0077]) to a second ground bar (300).
Regarding claim 20, the fifth combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 18 but does not disclose first attaching the first and second ground bars to the cables, secondly soldering the cables to the mating contact portions, and finally welding the second ground bar to the mounting contact portions.
This is, however, nothing more than a reordering of the sequence of assembly in Zerebilov. Zerebilov indisputably discloses connection of the first and second ground bar to the cables (as shown by FIGS 5-7 and discussed in at least para. [0077]). Zerebilov furthermore discloses soldering of the cables to the contact portions (para. [0045]). Finally, Zerebilov discloses the second ground bar being welded to the mounting contact portions (para. [0044]; see discussion above relating to the similar subject matter of claim 8). It is evident that the specific order of assembly recited by the instant claim would not produce a new or unexpected result; instead, it would simply produce an identical connector through a difference process.
The courts have previously held that “reversing the order of the prior art process steps” renders claims prima facie obvious7 and that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results…”8. Here, it cannot be reasonably asserted that Zerebilov does not disclose all steps of the instant claim. The sole question is whether Zerebilov inherently discloses the specific order of steps recited by claim 20. In view of Burhans and Rubin, it is evident that the specific order does not carry patentably weight unless a new or unexpected result is obtained. There is no apparent disclosure, teaching, or other indication that the instant order of steps is critical or otherwise patentably significant. The steps recited, regardless of their order, result in production of the same connector.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Zerebilov to first attach the first and second ground bars to the cables, then solder the cables to the mating contact portions, and finally weld the second ground bar to the mounting contact portions because reordering the steps of Zerebilov to utilize the steps of the instant claim would not result in a new or unexpected result, and thus the order of Zerebilov nonetheless renders the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0351547 is drawn toward an electrical connector having side band contacts, including mating and mounting portions, which are electrically connected to each other. Thus, ‘547 may be of relevance to claim 12 once the issues under §112 are resolved.
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
1 See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
2 See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
3 This benefit is recognized by Zerebilov and is seemingly inherent to the collective grounding of ground terminals.
4 As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 under the second combination further in view of Zerebilov.
5 This benefit is recognized by Zerebilov and is seemingly inherent to the collective grounding of ground terminals.
6 As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 under the second combination further in view of Zerebilov.
7 See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
8 See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Prosecution Insights