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
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US 20240128669 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lim discloses a connector, comprising:
a main body 22, comprising a connecting portion 20;
a connecting element 1, connected to the main body 22, the connecting element 1 surrounds the connecting portion 20 to form a connecting opening, the connecting element 1 comprises an inner surface 12, the inner surface 12 faces the connecting portion 20; and
at least one reinforcing element 114/117, connected to the inner surface of the connecting element 1 and extends along a plugging direction D3 of the connecting portion 20.
In regard to claim 2, Lim discloses the connecting element 1 comprises at least one bend area 113, the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 is located on at least one side 117 of the at least one bend area 113 (see para. [0056] and fig. 3-6, 18).
In regard to claim 3, Lim discloses the connecting element 1 comprises four bend areas 113, the number of the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 is eight, the eight reinforcing elements 114/117 are located in pairs on two sides of the four bend areas 113 (see fig. 3-6).
In regard to claim 5, Lim discloses at least one auxiliary reinforcing element (see annotated drawing below), the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element is connected to the inner surface 12 and extended along the plugging direction D3, there is a distance between the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element and the at least one reinforcing element 114/117.
In regard to claim 7, Lim discloses a width of each of the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 in a direction D1 perpendicular to the plugging direction D3 is larger than a width of each of the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element in the direction D1 perpendicular to the plugging direction D3.
In regard to claim 9, Lim discloses at least one recess (see annotated drawing below), the at least one recess is disposed on the connecting element 1 and connected to the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element.
In regard to claim 10, Lim discloses at least one recess (see annotated drawing below), the at least one recess is disposed on the connecting element 1 and connected to the at least one reinforcing element 114/117.
In regard to claim 12, Lim discloses the connecting element 1 comprises two first regions (two longer sides of 11 in fig. 5), two second regions (two shorter sides of 11) and four bend areas 113, the two first regions are opposite to each other, the two second regions are opposite to each other, and the four bend areas are respectively connected to corresponding each of the two first regions and each of the two second regions, the two first regions extend along a first direction D2, the two second regions extend along a second direction D1, the first direction D2 is perpendicular to the plugging direction D3 and the second direction D1, the second direction D1 is perpendicular to the plugging direction D3.
[AltContent: textbox (recess)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (auxiliary reinforcing element)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
612
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamura et al. (US 2022/0302618 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Yamamura et al. discloses a connector 10, comprising:
a main body 12, comprising a connecting portion 13;
a connecting element 35, connected to the main body 12, the connecting element 35 surrounds the connecting portion 13 to form a connecting opening, the connecting element 35 comprises an inner surface 36, the inner surface 36 faces the connecting portion 13; and
at least one reinforcing element 46, connected to the inner surface 36 of the connecting element 35 and extends along a plugging direction (see fig. 2) of the connecting portion 13.
In regard to claim 11, Yamamura et al. discloses a transmission wire 50, the transmission wire 50 is connected to the main body 12.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju (US 10490940 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Ju discloses a connector 100, comprising:
a main body 1, comprising a connecting portion 12;
a connecting element 3, connected to the main body 1, the connecting element 3 surrounds the connecting portion 12 to form a connecting opening 34, the connecting element 3 comprises an inner surface, the inner surface faces the connecting portion 12; and
at least one reinforcing element 35, connected to the inner surface of the connecting element 40 and extends along a plugging direction of the connecting portion 12.
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) 4, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim.
In regard to claim 4, Lim does not disclose a thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 in a direction perpendicular to the plugging directionD3 is 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element, to the extent that Lim does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 6, Lim does not disclose a thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 in a direction perpendicular to the plugging direction D3 is 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element, to the extent that Lim does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the thickness of each of the at least one reinforcing element would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
In regard to claim 8, Lim does not disclose a width of each of the at least one reinforcing element 114/117 in a direction perpendicular to the plugging direction D3 is equal to a width of each of the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element in the direction perpendicular to the plugging direction D3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Lim’s invention by constructing the at least one reinforcing element in a direction perpendicular to the plugging direction is equal to a width of each of the at least one auxiliary reinforcing element in the direction perpendicular to the plugging direction since applicants have presented no explanation that this particular configuration of the width are significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces between two members. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher M 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.
Tdt
9/4/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights