DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 21 May 2024. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,748,999 to Sun et al. (‘999 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 7,485,008 to Yi et al. (‘008 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘999 teaches a method of making an electrical connector, comprising the steps of: molding a first insulator and a separate second insulator with an upper row of contacts (Fig 3 items 211, 213 and 211) and molding an insulator with a lower row of contacts (Fig 3 items 221 and 222), respectively; bending the upper row of contacts along a region thereof situated between the first insulator and the separate second insulator (Fig 3 item 211 shows a bend in the claimed location); bending the lower row of contacts (Fig 3 item 222); securing the first insulator and the separate second insulator to the insulator molded with the lower row of contacts (Figs 3 and 10 items 212, 222 and 23) and attaching an insulator with the upper and the lower rows of contacts while exposing respective upper and lower contacting portions of the upper and the lower rows of contacts (Figs 3 and 10 items 212, 222 and 23). While the ‘999 reference teaches the bending and molding steps claimed, it is silent with respect to order of operations. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to select a molding/bending order since it has been held that the transposition of process steps . . . where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). While ‘999 teaches the attachment of the upper and lower rows of contacts to an insulator, it does not teach molding an insulator onto the upper and lower rows of contacts.
In the same field of endeavor, the formation of multicontact fixtures, ‘008 teaches that it is known that insert molding and post-molding assembly are equivalent operations with equally likely expectations for success (C4L36-C4L65). One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated modify the method of inserting the contacts taught by the ‘999 reference with an insert molding operation suggested by ‘008 for the benefit of promoting stiffness in the final article.
Regarding claim 2, ‘999 teaches the method wherein the step of molding the insulator with the lower row of contacts comprises molding a third insulator (Fig 3 items 221 and 222) and attaching a separate fourth insulator (Fig 3 item 23), and the step of bending the lower row of contacts comprising bending along a region thereof situated between the third insulator and the separate fourth insulator (Fig 3 item 222). While the ‘999 reference teaches the bending and molding steps claimed, it is silent with respect to order of operations. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to select a molding/bending order since it has been held that the transposition of process steps . . . where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). While ‘999 teaches the attachment of the upper and lower rows of contacts to an insulator, it does not teach molding an insulator onto the upper and lower rows of contacts.
In the same field of endeavor, the formation of multicontact fixtures, ‘008 teaches that it is known that insert molding and post-molding assembly are equivalent operations with equally likely expectations for success (C4L36-C4L65). One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated modify the method of inserting the contacts into the fourth insulator taught by the ‘999 reference with an insert molding operation suggested by ‘008 for the benefit of promoting stiffness in the final article.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘999 in view of ‘008 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,882,316 to Chen Chao-Chieh et al. (‘316 hereafter).
Regarding claim 3, ‘999 in view of ‘008 does not teach a bridge or the severing of same.
In the same field of endeavor, assembling multi-contact fixtures, ‘316 teaches the method further comprising a step of severing a bridge of the upper row of contacts before the step of molding the insulator and contacts (C3L53-C4L3, C5L57-C4L63, C4L6-C4L24) for the benefit of providing affordances to move the parts into position. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘999 in view of ‘0087 with those of ‘316 for the benefit of moving small parts into position with automated equipment.
Regarding claim 4, ‘999 in view of ‘008 does not teach a bridge or the severing of same.
In the same field of endeavor, assembling multi-contact fixtures, ‘316 teaches the method further comprising a step of severing a bridge of the lower row of contacts before the step of molding the insulator with the lower row of contacts (C3L53-C4L3, C5L57-C4L63, C4L6-C4L24) for the benefit of providing affordances to move the parts into position. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘999 in view of ‘0087 with those of ‘316 for the benefit of moving small parts into position with automated equipment.
Regarding claim 5, ‘999 in view of ‘008 does not teach a shield plate. In the same field of endeavor, assembling multi-contact fixtures, ‘316 teaches the method further comprising a step of placing a shielding plate between the upper row of contacts and the lower row of contacts before the step of securing (C3L53-C4L3, C4L6-C4L24) for the benefit preventing inadvertent connection between the upper and lower contacts. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘999 in view of ‘008 with those of ‘316 for the benefit of preventing inadvertent connection between rows of contacts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 9,673,569 to Zhang Xue-Hai teaches a method of assembling a multi-contact fixture
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0288424 to Zhao Jun et al. teaches a method of assembling a multi-contact fixture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights