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 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 1-10, 15-16, and 18 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 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “another side.”
Claim 15 has the same issue as claim 1 and will be interpreted the same way.
Claim 17 introduces, “a shielding plate.” Claim 18 then reintroduces, “the shielding member including a shielding plate.” It is unclear whether the shielding plate of claim 18 is meant to introduce a new shielding plate or refer to the shielding plate of claim 17. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as, “the shielding member further including a plurality of protrusions.”
Claims 2-10 and 16 inherit the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0178620 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches an electrical connector comprising: an insulative housing (i.e. 120 and 1305) including a pair of side walls (i.e. walls of 120), a mating tongue (i.e. each 1305) located between the pair of side walls, and a plurality of passageways (i.e. receiving 1301/1302) formed in the mating tongue; a first set of contacts (i.e. 1301, 1302, 1503) disposed in corresponding passageways at one side (i.e. left side of each 1305) of the mating tongue and a second set of contacts (i.e. 1301, 1302, 1503) disposed in corresponding passageways at the other side (i.e. right side of each 1305) of the mating tongue, each set of contacts including a plurality of differential-pair contacts (i.e. 1301) and a plurality of grounding contacts (i.e. 1302, 1503) alternately arranged with each other along a transverse direction, each contact including a contacting section (i.e. 1303) exposed to the mating tongue, a tail (i.e. 1304) exposed outside of the housing, and a retaining section (i.e. retained in 1305) therebetween; a metallic ground bar (i.e. 150) unitarily formed of a single piece, the metallic ground bar including a base (i.e. 1501) and the two sets of grounding contacts; and a shielding member (i.e. 140) secured to a center of the mating tongue and located between the two sets of contacts in a front-to-back direction,
but does not specifically teach, the shielding member welded to the metallic ground bar.
However, it has been held that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113-I.
Furthermore, Li teaches an embodiment (Figure 13) where the shielding member (i.e. 1411) and ground bar (i.e. 1414) are integrally formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the shielding member welded to the ground bar. Li teaches a number of ways to connect the ground bar and shielding member so it would be obvious to use a known method in the art to connect the shielding member and ground bar.
Regarding claim 2: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base is formed as a flat plate member, the two sets of grounding contacts bending and extending downwardly from two opposite edges of the base.
Regarding claim 3: Li (Figures 2, 4) he electrical connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein each contact includes a straight portion (i.e. between 1303 and 1304) extending along a vertical direction and the tail extends from the straight portion, the straight portion having an outer surface (i.e. between 1303 and 1305) exposed upon the mating tongue, the contacting section formed on the outer surface of the straight portion, the grounding contacts connected to the base via an upper end of the straight portion.
Regarding claim 4: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic ground bar further includes a plurality of holes (i.e. 1502) arranged along the transverse direction, each hole penetrating an upper surface and a lower surface of the base, the shielding member including a shielding plate (i.e. 140 is a shielding plate) and a plurality of protrusions (i.e. 1402) extending from an upper end of the shielding plate to be welded to corresponding holes.
Regarding claim 8: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the insulative housing includes a mating block (i.e. combined 1305) and a seat (i.e. 120), the two sets of contacts, the metallic ground bar, and the shielding member are insert-molded with the mating block, the mating block includes the mating tongue and a mounting portion (i.e. 1306), the seat further includes a bottom plate (i.e. receiving top of 1305) and a surrounding wall portion (i.e. receiving sides of 1305) formed by a pair of side walls and end walls, the bottom plate is provided with an opening (i.e. receiving 1306) which the mounting portion is fixed in, the mating tongue is located in the surrounding wall portion, and a cavity (i.e. holes on sides of each 1305) is formed between the mating tongue and the surrounding wall portion.
Regarding claim 10: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein a first size of the grounding contacts (i.e. height of 1303) in a vertical direction is greater than a second size of the differential-pair contacts (i.e. height of 1304) in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 11: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches an electrical connector comprising: an insulative housing (i.e. 120 and 1305) including a pair of side walls (i.e. walls of 120), a mating tongue (i.e. each 1305) located between the pair of side walls, and a plurality of passageways (i.e. receiving 1301/1302) formed in the mating tongue; a first set of differential-pair contacts (i.e. 1301) disposed in corresponding passageways (i.e. portion of 1305 receiving 1301) at one side of the mating tongue, each differential-pair contact including a contacting section (i.e. 1303) exposed upon one face of the mating tongue, a tail (i.e. 1304) exposed outside of the housing, and a retaining section (i.e. between 1303 and 1304) therebetween; a metallic ground bar (i.e. 150) being unitarily formed of a single piece and secured to the mating tongue, the metallic ground bar including a base (i.e. 1501) and a first set of grounding contacts (i.e. first side of 1503 and 1302) extending from the base, the first set of grounding contacts disposed in corresponding passageways (i.e. portion of 1305 receiving 1503); and a shielding member (i.e. 140) secured to the mating tongue, located between two sets of differential-pair contacts in a front-to-back direction, and welded to the metallic ground bar, the shielding member including a shielding plate (i.e. 140 is a shielding plate),
but does not specifically teach, the shielding member welded to the metallic ground bar.
However, it has been held that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113-I.
Furthermore, Li teaches an embodiment (Figure 13) where the shielding member (i.e. 1411) and ground bar (i.e. 1414) are integrally formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the shielding member welded to the ground bar. Li teaches a number of ways to connect the ground bar and shielding member so it would be obvious to use a known method in the art to connect the shielding member and ground bar.
Regarding claim 12: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 11, wherein each grounding contact includes a contacting section (i.e. 1303) exposed upon one face of the mating tongue, a tail (i.e. 1304) exposed outside of the housing, and a retaining section (i.e. between 1303 and 1304) therebetween,
Regarding claim 13: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 11, wherein a first size (i.e. height of 1303) of the grounding contacts in a vertical direction is greater than a second size (i.e. height of 1304) of the differential-pair contacts in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 15: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 11, further including a second set of differential-pair contacts (i.e. 1301) disposed in corresponding passageways at the other side, the metallic ground bar further includes a second set of grounding contacts (i.e. other side of 1503 and 1302) extending from the base, and the two sets of grounding contacts are exposed upon two opposite faces (i.e. top and bottom faces) of the mating tongue.
Regarding claim 16: Li teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 15, but this embodiment does not specifically teach wherein the shielding member includes two parallel shielding plates secured to the mating tongue.
However, Li (Figure 14) teaches wherein the shielding member (i.e. 141) includes two parallel shielding plates (i.e. 1411) secured to the mating tongue.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Li to have the two parallel shielding plates as taught by the other embodiment of Li because it would be obvious to design the connector with the desired embodiment known in the art.
Regarding claim 17: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches a grounding member for use within an electrical connector having a mating tongue, said grounding member comprising: a metallic ground bar (i.e. 150) including a base (i.e. 1501) formed as a flat plate member and two sets of grounding contacts (i.e. 1503) extending downwardly from opposite front and rear ends of the base; and a shielding member (i.e. 140), wherein each grounding contact includes a straight portion (i.e. upward extension of 1503) extending along a vertical direction to connect to the base and a tail (i.e. base of 1503) extending from the straight portion, and the shielding member includes a shielding plate (i.e. 140 is a shielding plate) located between the two sets of grounding contacts in a front-to-back direction,
but does not specifically teach the shielding member welded to the metallic ground bar.
However, it has been held that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113-I.
Furthermore, Li teaches an embodiment (Figure 13) where the shielding member (i.e. 1411) and ground bar (i.e. 1414) are integrally formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the shielding member welded to the ground bar. Li teaches a number of ways to connect the ground bar and shielding member so it would be obvious to use a known method in the art to connect the shielding member and ground bar.
Regarding claim 18: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the grounding member as claimed in claim 17, wherein the metallic ground bar further includes a plurality of holes (i.e. 1502) arranged along a transverse direction, each hole penetrating both an upper surface and a lower surface of the base, the shielding member including a shielding plate and a plurality of protrusions (i.e. 1402) extending from an upper end of the shielding plate to be welded (i.e. per the modification of claim 17) to corresponding holes.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Yang (US 2021/0351529 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Li (Figures 2, 4) teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 8, wherein the mating block further includes a base block (i.e. first 1305) and a covering block (i.e. second 1305),
But does not specifically teach the metallic ground bar, the grounding contacts, and the shielding member are insert-molded with the base block, a plurality of extension portions extend outwardly from two opposite surfaces of the base block in a front-to-back direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and are arranged at intervals along the transverse direction, a respective positioning slot is formed between every two adjacent extension portions, differential-pair contacts are fixed in a corresponding positioning slot, and the covering block is molded outside the base block.
However, it has been held that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113-I.
Therefore, the manufacturing choice to insert mold the metallic ground bar, the grounding contacts, and the shielding member with the base block does not differentiate the claimed invention from the electrical connector taught by Li, nor does the manufacturing choice to mold the covering block outside the base block.
Furthermore, Yang (Figures 6 and 7) teaches a plurality of extension portions (i.e. 231) extend outwardly from two opposite surfaces of the base block (i.e. 23) in a front-to-back direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and are arranged at intervals along the transverse direction, a respective positioning slot (i.e. 211) is formed between every two adjacent extension portions, differential-pair contacts are fixed in a corresponding positioning slot.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and D1 (CN 116191085).
Regarding claim 14: Li teaches the electrical connector as claimed in claim 11, but does not specifically teach wherein one of the grounding contacts is broader than the other grounding contacts in the transverse direction.
However, D1 (Figure 7) teaches wherein one of the grounding contacts (i.e. 25G) is broader than the other grounding contacts (i.e. 24G) in the transverse direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounding contacts taught by Li to have one of the grounding contacts be broader than the other grounding contacts as taught by D1 so as to better-accommodate the desired current for each grounding contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 19-20 while Li (Figures 11-13) teaches an embodiment where two shielding plates are used, the prior art of record does not fairly teach or suggest two opposite shielding plates spaced from each other in the front-to-back direction alone or in obvious combination with the remainder of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
