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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a WIPO publication page was submitted, please provide a clean copy. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ""the anti-mating direction"" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “an anti-mating direction” or “a mating direction” to which the limitations refers.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mating direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “a mating direction” to which the limitations refers.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mating direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “a mating direction” to which the limitations refers.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mating direction" in lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “a mating direction” to which the limitations refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasame et al. [US 20210050683 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Sasame discloses a board connector (100, Fig 1), comprising: (a) housing (110, 130, 150; see Fig 5); and a signal terminal (120, 160) mounted in this housing (110, 130, 150); wherein (b) the housing (110, 130, 150) includes a first space portion (108) and a second space portion (1302/1508; see Figure 9-10) positioned further in the anti-mating direction than the first space portion (108), and a first side surface of the signal terminal (120, 160) is exposed to the outside of the board connector (100) through the first space portion (108) and the second space portion (1302/1508; see [0040]), and (c) the housing (110, 130, 150) further includes a third space portion (139/151; see Figure 8) and this third space portion (139/151) is positioned on a second side surface of the signal terminal (120, 160) and the signal terminal (120, 160) engages with the third space portion (139, 151; the terminals are “received or “dented” into the recesses 139/151, see [0038]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses with the board connector (100) and counterpart connector (190, Fig 2) in a mated state, at least a part of the first space portion (108) is covered by the counterpart connector (190) (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses the housing (110, 130, 150) further includes: a recessed section (114, Fig 13) for stowing at least a portion of the counterpart connector (190) and that is open on the mating direction end, a long wall section (112, 116) that demarcates at least a portion of the side surface of the recessed section (114), and a bottom plate (117) that closes the anti-mating direction end of the recessed section (114), and the second space portion (1302/1508) is formed in the long wall section (112, 116), overlapping with the bottom plate (117) in the mating direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses the second space portion (1302/1508) and third space portion (139/151) are formed mutually adjacent with respect to the mating direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses the portion of the signal terminal (120, 160) corresponding to the first space portion (108) with respect to the mating direction can function as a contact area with the counterpart signal terminal of the counterpart connector (190, see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses there are a plurality of signal terminals (120, 160) forming at least two mutually parallel rows with the first space portion (108), second space portion (1302, 1508), and third space portion (139/151) positioned on the side surface of the signal terminals (120, 160) of each row symmetrically formed to face each other.
Regarding Claim 10, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame further discloses a counterpart connector (190) that mates with this board connector (100).
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) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al. [US 20210050683 A1].
Regarding Claim 2, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame discloses the claimed invention except for the dimension of the first space portion in the mating direction is larger than that of the second space portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the dimension of the first space portion in the mating direction is larger than that of the second space portion, 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 skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Sasame discloses window 108 provides “air space” around conductive elements which is advantageous because it provides “contributes to signal integrity and performance of the electrical connector” [0034]. Adjusting the size of the window would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve desired signal integrity performance as recognized by Sasame.
Regarding Claim 6, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame discloses the claimed invention except for the dimensions of the first space portion and the second space portion in the width direction are smaller than the dimension of the signal terminal in the width direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the dimensions of the first space portion and the second space portion in the width direction are smaller than the dimension of the signal terminal in the width direction, 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 skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Sasame discloses the gaps (108, 1302, 1508) provide “air space” around conductive elements which is advantageous because it provides “contributes to signal integrity and performance of the electrical connector” [0034]. Adjusting the size of the window would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve desired signal integrity performance as recognized by Sasame.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al. [US 20210050683 A1] in view of Lybrand [US 20190372258 A1].
Regarding Claim 9, Sasame discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Sasame does not explicitly disclose gold plating is performed on the side surface of the signal terminal exposed to the outside of the board connector through the first space portion and the second space portion.
However, Lybrand discloses gold plating is performed on surfaces of terminals (102/104; see [0033] which may enhance conduction capabilities of the terminals.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sasame as suggested by Lybrand to provide gold plating performed on the side surface of the signal terminal exposed to the outside of the board connector through the first space portion and the second space portion. Doing so would improve conduction capabilities as recognized by Lybrand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, 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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights