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 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 rejections under this section 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11, 14, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (9,350,091).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, Huang et al. disclose a contact element (200, Fig. 3) for a plug connector part (100, Fig. 1) for contacting a corresponding contact element (not shown) of a mating plug connector part (not shown), the contact element comprising:
a first end region (220, Fig. 4) configured to connect to a printed circuit board (not shown);
a second end region (211, Fig. 4) opposite from the first end region and having at least one contact lug (240, fig. 4); and
a transition region (210, Fig. 4) located between the first end region and the second end region,
wherein at least some portions of the transition region have a geometry for impedance adjustment,
wherein the geometry for impedance adjustment runs uniformly (Figs. 4 and 5) at least in regions in an extension direction of the transition region between the first end region and the second end region, and
wherein the second end region has a further contact lug (230, Fig. 4), the contact lug and the further contact lug extending together with the transition region in a first direction.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 4 shows the geometry for impedance adjustment comprises a cross-sectional enlargement of the transition region.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 4 shows the geometry for impedance adjustment comprises a cross-sectional reduction of the transition region.
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 4 shows the geometry for impedance adjustment is located on at least one side portion of the transition region.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 4 shows the geometry for impedance adjustment is located on opposite side portions of the transition region.
Regarding claims 17 and 22, Huang et al., Fig. 1 shows the at least one contact element comprises a plurality of contact elements (200).
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harper, Jr. et al. (6,193,537).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Harper, Jr. et al. disclose a contact element (10a, Fig. 1) for a plug connector part (18a, Fig. 2A) for contacting a corresponding contact element (10b, Fir. 2A) of a mating plug connector part (18b, Fig. 2A), the contact element comprising:
a first end region (24, Fig. 1) configured to connect to a printed circuit board (not shown);
a second end region (a portion between 12 and 30ap, Fig. 1) opposite from the first end region and having at least one contact lug (16, fig. 1); and
a transition region (12, Fig. 1) located between the first end region and the second end region,
wherein at least some portions of the transition region have a geometry for impedance adjustment,
wherein the geometry for impedance adjustment runs uniformly (Fig. 2A) at least in regions in an extension direction of the transition region between the first end region and the second end region, and
wherein the second end region has a further contact lug (14, Fig. 1), the contact lug and the further contact lug (at 32) extending together with the transition region in a first direction.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 2A shows the contact lug and the further contact lug (at 32) are offset relative to one another along a second direction extending transverse to the first direction, and also along a third direction extending transverse to the first direction and transverse to the second direction.
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 4, 8, 12, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (9,350,091).
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a width-to-length ratio (B/L) of the transition region is in a range from 1:1.5 to 1:2.5. It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have a width-to-length ratio (B/L) of the transition region is in a range from 1:1.5 to 1:2.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a width of the transition region having the geometry for impedance adjustment is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1 mm. It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have a width of the transition region having the geometry for impedance adjustment is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al., Fig. 1 shows the at least one contact element comprises at least two contact elements (200), an air gap being located between adjacent contact elements of the at least two contact elements.
Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a width ratio (A/B) of a width of the air gap to a width of the transition regions of the contact elements having the geometry for impedance adjustment is in a range from 1:0.9 to 1:1.1. It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have for a width ratio (A/B) of a width of the air gap to a width of the transition regions of the contact elements having the geometry for impedance adjustment is in a range from 1:0.9 to 1:1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Regarding claim 15, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for wherein the width-to- length ratio (B/L) of the transition region is 1:2. It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have wherein the width-to- length ratio (B/L) of the transition region is 1:2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Regarding claim 16, Huang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the width of the transition region having the geometry for impedance adjustment 0.8 mm. It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have the width of the transition region having the geometry for impedance adjustment 0.8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Regarding claim 21, Huang et al., Fig. 1 shows the at least two contact elements comprise a plurality of contact elements (200), and the claimed invention as described above except for the width ratio (A/B) is 1:1.
It would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to have the width ratio (A/B) is 1:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for better connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH TAM T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2094. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Abdul Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/THANH TAM T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 08/02/26
thanh-tam.le@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights