8/13/2024DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in DE on 02/14/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2022 103 406.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. [US 4869677 A].
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a connector (backplane connector element 16, Fig 1-2), comprising: a connector housing (housing of connector element 16 including walls 46,56) having a plug opening (54), a recess (45) on a side of the plug opening (54), and a web (overhanging portion 60 of sidewall 46, see Fig 5) on a side of the recess (45) facing an interior of the connector (16); and a shield plate (sidewall ground contact 42) arranged on an inner side of the connector housing (in the groove 44 and recess 45 of sidewall 46), the shield plate (42) has a spring contact element (50) with a fastening element (58), the fastening element (58) is positioned in the recess (45), the fastening element (58) abuts against the web (60) in a non-plugged state of the connector (16, see Column 3, lines 11-26) and is spaced from the web (60) in a plugged state of the connector (16), the fastening element (58) does not protrude from the recess (45).
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the fastening element (58) in the plugged state is spaced from the web (60) by deflection of the spring contact element (50).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the fastening element (58) does not protrude from the recess (45) in both the non-plugged state and in the plugged state.
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the spring contact element (50) has an arcuate section (48) that extends around the web (60).
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 4, Johnson further discloses the fastening element (58) is a fastening hook (hook like tabs that bear against the overhanging portions 60) at an end of the arcuate section (48).
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the spring contact element (50) has an angled fastening element (58) that engages behind the web (60).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 6, Johnson further discloses the spring contact element (50) is an L-shaped fastening element (lateral tab 48) that engages behind the web (60).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses a section (upper section of contact element 48) of the spring contact element (50) abuts against an inner side of the web (60) in the plugged state (see Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses a section (upper section of contact element 48) of the spring contact element (50) abuts against the inner side of the connector housing (on the inner side of the web element 60 at sidewall 46) in the plugged state.
Regarding Claim 13, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the spring contact element (50) is pre-tensioned in a direction of the interior of the connector (16) [Column 3, lines 11-16].
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the shield plate (42 including connecting portion 53) rests on a positioning element (base 47) of the housing (housing of connector element 16 including walls 46,56).
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 14, Johnson further discloses the positioning element (base 47) protrudes from a wall (46) of the connector housing (housing of connector element 16 including walls 46,56) having the web (60).
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 15, Johnson further discloses the positioning element (47) extending along the full length/width of the housing side wall (46).
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 15, Johnson further discloses positioning element (47) is a plurality of supports that are spaced apart by openings (grooves 44).
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) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. [US 4869677 A].
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 9, Johnson further discloses recess (45) extends into sidewall (46) to receive tab fastening element (58) and deflected spring contact portion (50) upon maximum deflection in the plugged state without protruding past the outer wall of the housing of the connector (16). Johnson does not explicitly disclose the distance corresponds to a thickness of the connector housing.
However, dimensioning the clearance distance between the outer side of the fastening element (58) and the contact abutment point to correspond to the wall thickness of housing sidewall (46) is a matter of routine design optimization to minimize overall connector components and maintain mechanical stability.
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 11, Johnson further discloses recess (45) extends into sidewall (46) to receive tab fastening element (58) and deflected spring contact portion (50) upon maximum deflection in the plugged state without protruding past the outer wall of the housing of the connector (16). Johnson does not explicitly disclose the distance corresponds to a thickness of the connector housing.
However, dimensioning the clearance distance between the outer side of the fastening element (58) and the contact abutment point to correspond to the wall thickness of housing sidewall (46) is a matter of routine design optimization to minimize overall connector components and maintain mechanical stability.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. [US 4869677 A] in view of Wu [US 6007382 A].
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 6, Johnson does not explicitly disclose the spring contact element is a T-shaped fastening element that engages behind the web.
However, Wu discloses spring contact elements (3, Fig 2-3) is a T shaped fastening element (mounting portions 33, 32 form a T shape which fits into the T-shaped slots 201 of the housing (2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson as suggested by Wu to provide the spring contact element as a T-shaped fastening element instead of the L shaped fastening element (58) disclosed by Johnson. Providing symmetrical retention structures balances mechanical pre-loading forces and prevents terminals from unwanted movement during engagement as recognized by Wu.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. [US 4869677 A] in view of Huang et al. [US 20230187863 A1].
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Johnson further discloses the shield plate (42) press fit to backplane (14) and the mating connector (20) including contacts (22) which has mounting ends (23) that are soldered to a circuit board (12). Johnson does not explicitly disclose the shield plate has a soldering pad connecting to a circuit board.
However, Huang discloses conductive terminals/shield structures (112, 152) having surface-mount bonding structures (1112, 1512) configured as soldering pads for bonding to circuit substrate pads (31) on a circuit board (3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson as suggested by Huang to provide the shield plate has a soldering pad connecting to a circuit board. Substituting the press-fit mounting tails of Johnson with surface-mount soldering pads as taught by Huang would have been an obvious modification as they are known mounting techniques and would provide predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
