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 Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. While Examiner has attempted to examine the claims as filed, it should be understood that any rejection based on prior art is also based on Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed subject matter in view of the §112 rejections detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Examiner notes that instant paragraph [0070] mirrors the language of the claim, suggesting that cover 200 of the FIGS may be integrated with an undepicted FPC cover. This is not adequate for subject matter explicitly recited by the claims. Applicant recites the FPC cover as a distinct and separate element from the cover of claim 1, yet also suggests that it is integral to the cover of claim 1. It is entirely unclear what an FPC cover would constitute since the cover of claim 1 already covers a portion of the FPC. Thus, the figures cannot be reasonably interpreted as depicting the subject matter of claim 7.
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.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-7 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 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the holding member is provided to hold the [FPC] on the second surface of the [FPC]” in lines 14-15 of the claim as filed. It is unclear how a holding member would be provided to hold the FPC to a surface of itself. Instead, it appears that Applicant intends to recite the holding member as being “provided on the second surface of the [FPC]” such that it may form a bottom portion of a housing when connected to the cover. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, fail to cure its deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of examination the cited limitation will be interpreted as if it recited “the holding member is fixed to the second surface of the flexible printed circuit board….”
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “wherein in a short direction of the [FPC], a range where the recess and the pressing portion are provided is configured to include a range where the plurality of terminals are provided.”
As recited by claim 1, “the…terminals are provided to protrude from an inside of the housing in a longitudinal direction of the [FPC] to an outside” for connection to the FPC. Applicant does not specify any provision of the terminals along “a short direction,” nor does Applicant clearly convey what constitutes “a short direction.” As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is attempting to claim “wherein the plurality of terminals are provided along a width direction of the [FPC], and wherein the recess portion and the pressing portion are configured to extend beyond ends of the plurality of terminals in the width direction.” For purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be interpreted as if it recited Examiner’s interpretation, provided above. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “a wall surface of the recess on the one end side in the longitudinal direction” in lines 2-3 of the claim as filed. The wall surface, understood by Examiner to be element 311 of FIG 3B, is not on “the one end side” of the FPC. As recited in claim 1, the connector is provided on the one end side and the terminals extend on another end side. Thus, claim 3 would require the pressing portion to contact a wall occupying the same space as the connector. As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is attempting to claim that the pressing portion is configured to press the FPC against a wall surface of the recess, toward the one end side in the longitudinal direction. Appropriate clarification is required. Claim 4 depends from claim 3, fails to cure its deficiencies, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant recites the same deficient limitations discussed in claim 3, above. These limitations remain deficient. For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as if it instead recited “the protrusion is configured to press the FPC against the wall surface of the recess, toward the one end side in the longitudinal direction.” Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “the pair of walls are configured to cover both sides of portions protruding from the housing case in the plurality of terminals.” This limitation is nigh incomprehensible. Moreover, it is unclear which “portions” are being referenced as there is no prior recitation of “a portion protruding.” As best understood by Examiner, it seems that Applicant is attempting to recite “the cover has a pair of walls, the walls provided at opposing ends of the [FPC] along a/the width direction, wherein the walls are configured to cover a portion of the plurality of terminals that protrudes from the housing.” For purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be interpreted as if it recited Examiner’s interpretation, provided above. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant recites “the flexible printed circuit board cover” in line 3 of the claim as filed. It is unclear what constitutes “a flexible printed circuit board cover” since Applicant both recites it as a separate element while simultaneously claiming that it is integral (i.e., one and the same) with the cover of claim 1. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Additionally, the claim seemingly fails to further limit claim 1 since the cover of claim 1 is already inherently disclosed and recited as being a flexible printed circuit board cover. Claim 1 provides that the cover therein “sandwich[es] the connector between the cover and the holding member,” and also recites the connector and holding member effectively sandwiching the FPC. Thus, claim 1 already provides for a cover that “covers the flexible printed circuit board” and which is “integrated with the cover” and, as a result, claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0148857 (“Takase”), as best understood by Examiner in view of the rejections under §112, above.
Regarding claim 1, Takase discloses:
A wiring unit (FIGS 1-18) comprising:
a flexible printed circuit board (30);
a connector (40);
a holding member (50); and
a cover (60), wherein
the flexible printed circuit board has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (inherent; upper and lower surface), and has a plurality of wirings (FIG 5, showing wirings 31),
the connector has a housing case (para. [0044]) and a plurality of terminals (20; see para. [0046]),
the connector is connected to the first surface of the flexible printed circuit board (see FIG 4, where FPC inserts into the connector housing and, therefore, the connector is connected to the first surface of the FPC) at one end side in a longitudinal direction of the flexible printed circuit board (as shown),
the plurality of terminals are provided to protrude from an inside of the housing case to an outside (see annotated FIG 4, below, where the added black box shows the portion of terminals 20 extending outside of connector housing 40) and to be respectively connected to the plurality of wirings on the other end side in the longitudinal direction from the housing case (see para. [0046]),
the holding member (50) is provided to hold the flexible printed circuit board on the second surface of the flexible printed circuit board (see FIG 4, where holding member 50 abuts a lower, “second” surface of the FPC 30) ,
the cover (60) is provided to sandwich the connector between the cover and the holding member in a thickness direction of the flexible printed circuit board (see FIGS 4, 12, 13, and 15, showing how cover member 60 engages with holding member 50 to sandwich the FPC between said cover and holding member),
the holding member has a recess (FIG 4, BS1), and the recess is located on the other end side in the longitudinal direction from the plurality of terminals (as seen in annotated FIG 4, BS1 extends rearwardly, i.e., “on the other end side in the longitudinal direction from the plurality of terminals”) and is provided to be recessed toward a side opposite to the connector in the thickness direction (also as seen in annotated FIG 4, below, BS1 extends downwardly relative to the connector, i.e., “toward a side opposite to the connector in the thickness direction”), and
the cover has a pressing portion (61B), and the pressing portion is provided to press and make a part of the flexible printed circuit board enter the recess (as seen in FIG 4; see also para. [0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
627
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the recess and pressing portion provided along a width direction of the wiring unit and wherein the recess and pressing portion extend beyond ends of the protruding terminals along the width direction (see FIGS 4, 11, 13, and 15, showing how the recess and pressing portions are wider than the FPC).
Regarding claim 3, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the pressing portion configured to press the part of the FPC against a wall surface (FIG 4:36; broadly interpreted, plate 36 is a surface formed on a wall forming the recess, and thus may be reasonably interpreted as “a wall surface”), toward the one side in the longitudinal direction (as shown by FIG 4, pressing portion 61B presses the FPC against the recess wall along a direction extending toward the one side, i.e., toward the connector).
Regarding claim 4, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses the pressing portion (61B) having a protrusion (62), and the protrusion configured to press the FPC against the wall surface toward the one side in the longitudinal direction (protrusion 62 pushes the FPC toward the one side and, in combination with the remaining structure of the pressing portion, does so against the wall surface of the recess).
Regarding claim 5, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the cover having a pair of walls configured to cover both side ends of the plurality of terminals along the width direction (see, e.g., FIG 3 where the FPC is less wide than cover portion 60, implying that side walls of the cover enclose the terminals at their respective side ends).
Regarding claim 7, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a FPC cover (e.g., FIG 4:61A) that covers the FPC (as shown) and which is integrated with the cover (60, as shown).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takase as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Takase discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose a hinge configured to connect the holding member and cover to each other to form an integral element.
It is well-known in the art to provide discrete connector housing components with a hinged connection for the purpose of ensuring that the discrete components are not separated from each other during assembly or repair of the connector or its constituent elements. This is but one example of an obvious engineering choice that might be made to ensure portions of the connector housing are not lost during manufacture or repair operations.
Moreover, the courts have previously held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). There, a claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding. Here, the sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art disclosure is provision of a hinge to make two discrete elements integral; this is substantially the same as the facts of Larson, as briefly detailed above.
Finally, Examiner notes that the disclosure as provided does not detail any motivation to include the hinge beyond an incorrect assertion that further provision of a hinge somehow reduces the number of parts within the wiring unit (para. [0046]; while making two elements integral might “reduce” the number of parts in the sense that the two parts are now linked, there are still two parts; moreover, the proposed “reduction” by Applicant adds additional parts in order to make the two existing parts integral). Integration of parts inherently results in “a reduction of parts” by making multiple discrete parts into a singular part, and thus Applicant’s sole justification or discussion of why the hinge is provided cannot be considered “critical” to the design of the wiring unit. The lack of criticality is further evidenced by the fact that provision of a hinge is an optional embodiment of the disclosure.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Takase by including a hinge element between the cover and the holding part, thereby making the two elements integral with each other, for the purpose of ensuring that the cover and/or the holding part cannot be separated and lost during manufacture or repair of the connector or wiring unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights