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 language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract presented exceeds 150 words.
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 1-26 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Applicant recites “wherein the first extension portion is configured to be connected within at least a portion of a first terminal block connector portion that is configured to be located adjacent to a second terminal block connector portion” and “wherein the second extension portion is configured to be connected within at least a portion of a third terminal block connector portion that is configured to be located adjacent to a fourth terminal block connector portion” in each claim.
The language of each cited passage is indefinite because it is unclear what “configured to be located adjacent to” modifies in the preceding limitations. For example, the first passage may be plausibly interpreted in at least the following ways: (1) the second terminal block connector portion is adjacent to a first terminal block connector portion; or (2) the second terminal block connector portion is adjacent to a portion of a first terminal block connector portion. The same analysis applies, mutatis mutandis, to the second cited passage.
While it would appear, these options are functionally identical, Applicant’s subsequent recitation of “wherein the fourth terminal block connector portion is configured to be located adjacent to the third terminal block connector portion” raises further issues in context of the discussion above. For example, if there is no difference between “a third terminal block connector portion having a portion that is configured to be located adjacent to a fourth terminal block connector portion” and “a third terminal block connector portion that is configured to be located adjacent to a fourth terminal block connector portion” then recitation of “wherein the fourth terminal block connector portion is configured to be located adjacent to the third terminal block connector portion” is entirely redundant because it is already previously recited in the immediately preceding lines of the claim.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008). As shown above, the language of each cited passage is amendable to two or more plausible claim constructions: the second terminal block connector portion is adjacent to a first terminal block connector portion; or (2) the second terminal block connector portion is adjacent to a portion of a first terminal block connector portion. The same analysis applies, mutatis mutandis, to the second cited passage.
Examiner has reviewed the entirety of the disclosure as filed to determine whether or not the issues above may be better understood within the drawings or specification, but neither provides a clear resolution to the issues. The above-cited passages of the independent claims appear to be best reflected within instant FIG 8 (reproduced below). As seen therein, the first extension portion 712 is configured to be connected within at least an upper portion of first terminal block 806. The first data conductor portion 706 is disposed in second terminal block 802, while the second data conductor portion 708 is disposed in fourth terminal block 804. Finally, second extension portion 714 is configured to be connected within at least an upper portion of first terminal block 808. Thus, FIG 8 suggests that “wherein the fourth terminal block connector portion is configured to be located adjacent to the third terminal block connector portion” should instead recited “wherein the fourth terminal block connector portion is configured to be located adjacent to the second terminal block connector portion” (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If the preceding paragraph accurately reflects the intended scope of the claims, amending each independent claim to instead recite “wherein the fourth terminal block connector portion is configured to be located adjacent to the second terminal block connector portion” would obviate the lack of clarity and definiteness with respect to the relationship between first/third blocks and respective second/fourth blocks. For purposes of examination based on prior art, each independent claim has been interpreted as if they instead recited this limitation. Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-26 depend from one of claims 1, 9, and 17, fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 23, and 24 are further 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.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 23, Applicant recites “wherein the coupling device is configured to reduce the alien crosstalk of the single pair ethernet cabling system.” Each of these claims fail to further limit their respective parent claims because the recited subject matter is already recited in each independent claim.
For example, claim 1 provides that “A coupling device…comprising: [a] first spacing portion and [a] second spacing portion [which] are configured such that [a] first electrical coupling level is balanced with [a] second electrical coupling level so as to reduce alien crosstalk of a single pair ethernet cabling system” (emphasis added). As evidenced by the emphasized text, the entirety of the subject matter recited by claim 5 is already found in claim 1 and, thus, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
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. Claims 6, 14, and 24 depend from claims 5, 13, and 23, respectively; as claims cannot properly depend from an improper dependent claim, claims 6, 14, and 24 are also rejected due to their dependency from claims 5, 13, and 23, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Based on Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed subject matter and its intended scope, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-22, and 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matter of the instant independent claims, as best understood by Examiner in view of the deficiencies under §112.
None of the cited prior art discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 1, independent claim 9, or independent claim 17. As such, these claims would be allowable if the rejections under §112 were overcome. The remaining dependent claims, save for claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 23, and 24, would be allowable by virtue of dependency. Claims 6, 14, and 24 would be allowable by virtue of dependency if they were each amended to recite a direct dependency from their respective independent claims.
Examiner notes that, during the telephonic discussions, Applicant suggested (but did not confirm) that the limitation may have been included unintentionally. As the language is not merely a repeat of the preceding limitations, but instead reorders the elements therein, Examiner considers this to be unlikely. As a result, Examiner has not considered a claim scope corresponding to a complete omission of the problematic limitation. Should this be the intended scope, additional search and consideration will be required for the broader claim scope.
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
