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
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 200. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 (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 1-6 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 line 17 recites: “a second crosstalk reducing shape”. It is ambiguous what “a second crosstalk reducing shape”, since Applicant just simply recited the limitation but what exactly is this crosstalk reducing shape that Applicant wants to claim here. Neither Specification nor drawings described the crosstalk reducing shape. Therefore, further clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 also are rejected due to dependency.
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) 7, 9-10, 12- 18, and 20 as best understood and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberski et al. (US 10665974).
As per claim 1: Oberski et al. discloses a connector device configured to connect cables so at to mitigate crosstalk (wherein the connectors may exhibit good crosstalk performance and low levels of mode conversion, and hence may support high data rate communications), comprising: a plurality of connectors (as shown in fig. 71) each configured to connect a conductor of a first cable to a conductor of a second cable (see fig. 45, wherein multiple cables 1244-1/1244-2); each of the connectors comprising: a body portion having conductor receiving portions (see fig. 45, element 1220-1/1220-2) each structurally configured to receive a conductor of one of the cables (1244-1/1244-2); and
a crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 configured to mitigate crosstalk (wherein the tip trace 1324 and the ring trace 1334 each include a respective crossover segment 1325, 1335 that cause the tip conductive path 1320 to cross over the ring conductive path when viewed from above (or below) the printed circuit board 1310. This crossover may reduce the crosstalk between adjacent inline connectors 1300 (and between the cable connectors 1200 that mate with the inline connectors 1300); wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 comprises a connection portion 1320/1330 (as shown in fig. 45) structurally configured to connect a first one of the conductors to a second one of the conductors (see fig. 45, wherein multiple conductors from the cables 1244-1/1244-2); and wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 of a first one of the connectors connecting a first one of the cables is configured with a first crosstalk mitigating shape (wherein the shape, size and relative locations of the conductive pins 214 and the socket contacts 224 may be adjusted so that while the differential crosstalk at the pin or socket end of the connector self cancels due to their staggered arrangement at either end, the common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on one side of the crossovers is substantially cancelled by opposite polarity common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on the opposite side of the crossovers);
wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 of a second one of the connectors connecting a second one of the cables is configured with a second crosstalk mitigating shape (see fig. 45, wherein the shape, size and relative locations of the conductive pins 214 and the socket contacts 224 may be adjusted so that while the differential crosstalk at the pin or socket end of the connector self cancels due to their staggered arrangement at either end, the common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on one side of the crossovers is substantially cancelled by opposite polarity common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on the opposite side of the crossovers); wherein the first crosstalk mitigating shape includes a first angled portion and the second crosstalk mitigating shape includes a second angled portion (wherein with respect to various other pin and socket connectors discussed herein. It will likewise be appreciated that while the pin and socket connectors discussed above and below may either have straight conductive pins/socket contacts or conductive pins/socket contacts that include a 90° angle, in other embodiments any appropriate angle, curve, series of angles or the like may be included in either the conductive pins or the socket contacts). However, Oberski et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more.
On the other hand, Oberski et al. mentioned the simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between adjacent pairs (namely curves 190, 193 and 195 ) is at least 5 dB better than the level of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards (i.e., the performance exceeds these standards with a minimum of 5 dB margin). This represents about a 17 20 dB improvement in crosstalk performance as compared to the crosstalk performance illustrated in FIG. 7 for the conventional pin connector 10. The simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between "one-over" pair combinations (namely curves 191 and 194 ) is at least 7 dB below the maximum amount of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards. Finally, the simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between the one two-over pair combination (namely curve 192 ) is at least 13 dB below the maximum amount of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more can only deal with optimum range to reduce crosstalk in the system and to preserve signal integrity, prevent data errors, and maintain overall system reliability in electronic and communication networks. 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector device of Oberski et al. by having the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more ask taught by the instant invention to further enhance the signal integrity, prevent data errors, and maintain overall system reliability in electronic and communication networks.
As per claims 9-10, 12: Oberski et al. discloses the connector device, wherein the first crosstalk mitigation portion of the first one of the connectors includes a first flat portion (as shown in fig. 62A); and the second crosstalk mitigation portion of the second one of the connectors includes a second flat portion and the first flat portion is vertically offset from the second flat portion (see fig. 62A); and wherein the first connector includes a first conductor receiving portion 1220-1/1220-2 and the second connector includes a second conductor receiving portion (as shown in fig. 45), and the first conductor receiving portion is vertically offset from the second conductor receiving portion (see fig. 45); and wherein the cables are single pair ethernet cables (as shown in fig. 69, a first cable that includes a single twisted pair of insulated conductors and of a second cable that includes two twisted pairs of insulated conductors).
As per claim 13: Oberski et al. discloses a connector device configured to connect cables so at to mitigate crosstalk (wherein the connectors may exhibit good crosstalk performance and low levels of mode conversion, and hence may support high data rate communications), comprising: a plurality of connectors (as shown in fig. 71) each configured to connect a conductor of a first cable to a conductor of a second cable (see fig. 45, wherein multiple cables 1244-1/1244-2); each of the connectors comprising: a body portion having conductor receiving portions (see fig. 45, element 1220-1/1220-2) each structurally configured to receive a conductor of one of the cables (1244-1/1244-2); and
a crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 configured to mitigate crosstalk (wherein the tip trace 1324 and the ring trace 1334 each include a respective crossover segment 1325, 1335 that cause the tip conductive path 1320 to cross over the ring conductive path when viewed from above (or below) the printed circuit board 1310. This crossover may reduce the crosstalk between adjacent inline connectors 1300 (and between the cable connectors 1200 that mate with the inline connectors 1300); wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 comprises a connection portion 1320/1330 (as shown in fig. 45) structurally configured to connect a first one of the conductors to a second one of the conductors (see fig. 45, wherein multiple conductors from the cables 1244-1/1244-2). However, Oberski et al. silents wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion is configured with a crosstalk mitigating shape configured to reduce a level of crosstalk to the cables.
On the other hand, Oberski et al. mentioned wherein the shape, size and relative locations of the conductive pins and the socket contacts may be adjusted so that while the differential crosstalk at the pin or socket end of the connector self cancels due to their staggered arrangement at either end, the common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on one side of the crossovers is substantially cancelled by opposite polarity common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on the opposite side of the crossovers. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having the crosstalk mitigation portion is configured with a crosstalk mitigating shape configured to reduce a level of crosstalk to the cables is inherent and well known in the art of communication, because a crosstalk mitigating shape refers to a specific physical geometry or waveform profile engineered into electrical traces, components, or control signals to reduce unwanted electromagnetic or acoustic interference, rather than standard straight or parallel lines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector device of Oberski et al. by having the crosstalk mitigation portion is configured with a crosstalk mitigating shape configured to reduce a level of crosstalk to the cables as taught by the instant invention to further prevent data corruption, maintain signal clarity, ensure reliable system performance, and to increase network speed. Further, having the crosstalk mitigation portion is configured with a crosstalk mitigating shape configured to reduce a level of crosstalk to the cables is well known, common knowledge and commonly used in the art of electrical communication.
As per claim 14: Oberski et al. discloses a connector device wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 of a first one of the connectors connecting a first one of the cables is configured with a first crosstalk mitigating shape (wherein the shape, size and relative locations of the conductive pins 214 and the socket contacts 224 may be adjusted so that while the differential crosstalk at the pin or socket end of the connector self cancels due to their staggered arrangement at either end, the common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on one side of the crossovers is substantially cancelled by opposite polarity common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on the opposite side of the crossovers);
wherein the crosstalk mitigation portion 1325/1335 of a second one of the connectors connecting a second one of the cables is configured with a second crosstalk mitigating shape (see fig. 45, wherein the shape, size and relative locations of the conductive pins 214 and the socket contacts 224 may be adjusted so that while the differential crosstalk at the pin or socket end of the connector self cancels due to their staggered arrangement at either end, the common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on one side of the crossovers is substantially cancelled by opposite polarity common mode pair-to-pair crosstalk that is generated on the opposite side of the crossovers).
As per claim 15: Oberski et al. discloses a connector device. However, Oberski et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more.
On the other hand, Oberski et al. mentioned the simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between adjacent pairs (namely curves 190, 193 and 195 ) is at least 5 dB better than the level of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards (i.e., the performance exceeds these standards with a minimum of 5 dB margin). This represents about a 17 20 dB improvement in crosstalk performance as compared to the crosstalk performance illustrated in FIG. 7 for the conventional pin connector 10. The simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between "one-over" pair combinations (namely curves 191 and 194 ) is at least 7 dB below the maximum amount of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards. Finally, the simulated near-end crosstalk in the forward direction between the one two-over pair combination (namely curve 192 ) is at least 13 dB below the maximum amount of crosstalk allowed under the TIA and ISO Category 6a standards. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more can only deal with optimum range to reduce crosstalk in the system and to preserve signal integrity, prevent data errors, and maintain overall system reliability in electronic and communication networks. 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connector device of Oberski et al. by having the first crosstalk mitigating shape and the second crosstalk mitigating shape are configured to reduce a level of crosstalk of 3 dB or more ask taught by the instant invention to further enhance the signal integrity, prevent data errors, and maintain overall system reliability in electronic and communication networks.
As per claims 16-18, 20: Oberski et al. discloses a connector device, wherein the first one of the connectors includes a first conductor receiving portion 1220-1/1220-2 and the second one of the connectors includes a second conductor receiving portion (as shown in fig. 45), and the first conductor receiving portion is vertically offset from the second conductor receiving portion (see fig. 45); and wherein the first crosstalk mitigation portion of the first one of the connectors includes a first flat portion (as shown in fig. 62A); and the second crosstalk mitigation portion of the second one of the connectors includes a second flat portion and the first flat portion is vertically offset from the second flat portion (see fig. 62A); and wherein the first connector includes a first conductor receiving portion 1220-1/1220-2 and the second connector includes a second conductor receiving portion (as shown in fig. 45), and the first conductor receiving portion is vertically offset from the second conductor receiving portion (see fig. 45); and wherein the cables are single pair ethernet cables (as shown in fig. 69, a first cable that includes a single twisted pair of insulated conductors and of a second cable that includes two twisted pairs of insulated conductors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0288. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-6:30pm.
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 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.
/T.H.N/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
