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 of the following problems.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "40a" and "80" have both been used to designate second metal fittings.
In Figure 5, in view of the fourth wall portion 266, it seems that the third wall portion 263 is pointing at wrong wall portion. Currently, the reference number 263 seems to be pointing at the long side wall 23b and not the third wall portion of the first metal fitting mounting portion 26.
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.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
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.
The following title is suggested: CONNECTOR MODULE HAVING METAL FITTINGS.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0017], line 3, it seems that the abbreviation “(FPC)” should be -- (FPCB) -- because the full terminology is a flexible printed circuit board.
The last line of Paragraph [0018] also describes, “FPC”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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, lines 6-7 recite, “the first metal fitting includes base portions disposed along the outer peripheral wall”. Since “base portions” is in plural form, one metal fitting must include two or more base portions. First, it is not clear and indefinite how the base portions are arranged relative to each individual base portion. Are the base portions separately made or integrally made to each other? If the base portions are integrally connected to each other, how are the base portions are arranged? Second, it is not clear and indefinite how the base portions are disposed along one outer peripheral wall. Are each base portion disposed spaced apart from each other along the outer peripheral wall or all the base portions connected to each other and disposed along the outer peripheral wall?
claim 1, line 8 recites, “first extending portions extending from the base portions”. Again, “first extending portions” are also in plural form. Therefore, it is not clear and indefinite whether the first extending portions are extending from the base portions in one-to-one relationship (each one base portion including one first extending portion) or two or more first extending portions are extending from each of the base portions.
Claim 1, lines 10-12 recite, “a pair of second extending portions facing each other … from different positions on the base portions than the first extending portions”. It is not clear and indefinite how the pair of second extending portions can be positioned on the base portions facing each other since, claim 1, line 3 recites, “an outer peripheral wall”, which is only one outer peripheral wall.
Claim 2, line 2 recites that the outer peripheral wall includes long walls and a short wall without reciting how many long walls and one short wall are structurally related with all together since claim 2 is simply listing the long walls and the short wall without reciting any structural relationship between them.
Claim 3 recites that the first extending portions and the second extending portions are adjacent to each other. However, claim 1, line 10 recites that the pair (two) of second extending portions are facing each other on the base portions. Therefore, it is not clear and indefinite whether the pair of second extending portions are all together positioned on one base portion along with the first extending portions or the two (pair) of second extending portions are separated from each other to positioned on two of the base portions along with the first extending portions.
The claims have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible indefiniteness problems. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Abdullah A 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights