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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2, term, “a second opening for …the first insertion direction” is unclear as to how terminal module 30 is inserted in opening 61B into for operation position as shown in figure 7. The position of part 30 shown in figure 9 is not on operation position.
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.
Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020126713.
Regarding claim 1, JP discloses a connector 10, comprising: a terminal module 61 including a pair of terminal fittings (near to the leadline 61) to be connected to cable W and a housing 21 for accommodating the terminal module 61, cable being routed in parallel in the housing 21 and drawn out from the housing 21, and the housing 21 being provided with an expansion preventing wall for sandwiching the differential pair cable from outer sides in an array direction. JP discloses the claimed invention except for a different pair of cable for communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify JP to provide such features so as to provide for better electrical connector.
Regarding claim 3, JP discloses the housing 21 includes: a housing body 21 having an accommodation space 23 for accommodating the terminal module 61; and a cover 40 for covering the accommodation space 23, a routing space for routing the differential pair cable being provided between the cover 40 and the housing body 21, the differential pair cable routed in the routing space is drawn out from the housing 21, and the housing body 21 and the cover 40 are provided with a strain relief portion 33 for sandwiching the differential pair cable W in the routing space in a bent state.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP in view of MacKay (U. S. Patent 5,217,389).
Regarding claim 4, JP discloses the claimed invention except for the strain relief portion includes a routing portion for bending the differential pair cable, and an expansion preventing portion for preventing expansion of the differential pair cable is constituted by the expansion preventing wall and the routing portion. MacKay discloses strain relief 40 to bent cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify JP to provide such features as taught by MacKay so as to provide to hole cable to prevent cable pull out.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG K DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Riyami A Abdullah 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.
/PHUONG K DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights