The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elenbaas (US 2017/0307828 A1) in view of Leigh et al (US 2014/0301701 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Elenbaas discloses (Figs. 4 – 8; Abstract; para. 0017 – 0029) an (hybrid) optoelectrical connector comprising:
a plurality of electrical wires 163,179 (Abstract) each extending along a first direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 7);
a plurality of optical fibers 175 (Abstract) each extending along the first (horizontal) direction;
a housing 510,11 that houses the plurality of electrical wires 163,179 and the plurality of optical fibers 175 (Figs. 2 and 4); and
a pressing part 165,129 configured to be pressable against at least one of the plurality of electrical wires 163,179 (springs 165 press on leading end of 163; “spring-loaded contacts (163)” in the Abstract) or the plurality of optical fibers 175 (the spring 129 presses on the entire ferrule 510 holding the electrical wires 163,179 and the optical fibers 175) along the first (horizontal) direction (Figs. 4 and 7),
wherein each leading end (left end in Fig. 7) of the plurality of electrical wires 163,179 and each leading (left) end of the plurality of optical fibers 175 are exposed at an end (left) face of the housing (in order to make contact with a counterpart connector, as show in Fig. 8).
Elenbaas teaches only embodiments wherein the electrical wires 163,179 and the optical fibers 175 are all housed in a single common/shared housing/ferrule 510. Elenbaas does not teach that the electrical wires 163,179 and the optical fibers 175 can alternatively be housed in separate modular housings. However, Leigh discloses (Figs. 1 – 4; Abstract; para. 0009 and 0014 – 0024) a connector that comprises a plurality of optical fibers 208 and/or a plurality of electrical wires (“In the ensuing discussion, reference is made to just optical connectors--note, however, that various components discussed below can also include or be substituted with electrical connectors” at para. 0009), wherein a housing including a plurality of housing parts 300 (modular ferrules shown in Figs. 3A and 3B) respectively housing the plurality of optical fibers 208 and/or a plurality of electrical wires.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the connector of Elenbaas (a single common/shared housing/ferrule 510) can be modified in accordance with the teachings of Leigh and comprise a plurality of electrical wire housing parts (modular ferrules) respectively housing the plurality of electrical wires, and a plurality of optical fiber housing parts (modular ferrules) respectively housing the plurality of optical fibers. The motivation for using modular housing parts/units is that they “may be removably inserted into the connector modules” and enable reconfigurable and upgradable connectors (para. 0011, 0012, and 0016 of Leigh).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers that each leading end (left end in Fig. 7 of Elenbaas) of the plurality of optical fibers 175 is included in at least one optical fiber array extending along a second (vertical/width) direction intersecting the first (horizontal) direction at the end (left) face of the housing, and wherein each leading end of the plurality of electrical wires 175 is included in a plurality of signal line arrays (vertically stacked above and below the fiber array, according to Fig. 3a of Leigh) extending along the second (width) direction and being adjacent to each other in a third (height) direction intersecting the second direction at the end face of the housing.
Regarding claim 4, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers that the pressing part 165,129 further includes a first pressing part 165 (Fig. 7 of Elenbaas) configured to be pressable against each leading (left) end of the plurality of electrical wires 179,163 toward a mating connector (left connector in Fig. 8) along the first direction.
Regarding claim 5, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers that the pressing part 165,129 further includes a second pressing part 129 configured to be pressable against each leading end of the plurality of optical fibers 175 toward the mating connector along the first (horizonal) direction (as seen in Figs. 4 and 8).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination renders obvious that a magnitude of a force with which the first pressing part 165 presses each leading (left) end of the plurality of electrical wires 179 can generally be different (greater or smaller) from a magnitude of a force with which the second pressing part 129 presses each leading (left) end of the plurality of optical fibers 175.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers that the first pressing part 165 and the second pressing part 129 are elastic bodies (springs; Figs. 4 and 7 of Elenbaas; para. 0006, 0007, 0023, and 0026 of Elenbaas), wherein the pressing part 165,129 includes the first pressing part 165 provided at each of the leading (left) ends of the plurality of electrical wires 179,163 and the second pressing part 128 provided at each of the leading (left) ends of the plurality of optical fibers 175 (note that the optical fibers 175 in Fig. 4 are to extend by far to the right than to their leading ends on the left end of the ferrule 510), and a spring constant of the first pressing part 165 can generally be different (greater or smaller) from a spring constant of the second pressing part 129.
Regarding claim 10, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers that a position of each leading (left) end of the plurality of electrical wires 179,163 (Fig. 7 of Elenbaas) in the first (horizontal) direction and a position of each leading end of the plurality of optical fibers 175 in the first direction are different from each other (Fig. 7 shows the leading (left) ends of 163 extend more to the left than the leading (left) ends of 175).
Regarding claim 11, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers (Figs. 3A and 3B of Leigh) that the housing further includes a first sub-connector provided with the plurality of electrical wire housing parts and a second (vertically stacked) sub-connector provided with the plurality of optical fiber housing parts.
Regarding claim 12, the Elenbaas – Leigh combination considers (Fig. 7 of Elenbaas; Figs. 3A and 3B of Leigh) that the contemplated optoelectrical/hybrid connector (with a plurality of vertically stacked modules) comprises at least one guide hole (shown in Figs. 3A and 3B of Leigh) configured to allow insertion of a guide pin (such as 177 in Figs. 7 and 8 of ) to position the housing, wherein at least one of the plurality of electrical wire housing parts or the plurality of optical fiber housing parts is a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 3B of Leigh) each of which extends along the first direction (longitudinal direction in Fig. 3 of Leigh) and penetrates the housing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elenbaas in view of Leigh, and further in view of Doye (US 2022/0102919 A1).
Regarding claim 13, while the Elenbaas – Leigh combination does not list suitable/workable types of electrical cables, Doye discloses (Figs. 3 and 14; Abstract; para. 0028, 0029, and 0048 – 0050) a connector assembly comprising a plurality of electrical wires of at least one flexible flat cable 70,80,90 that is housed/stacked in a housing 10 (Fig. 14) flexed/bent for a connection to a printed circuit board 40 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of electrical wires in the connector of the Elenbaas – Leigh combination can include a plurality of electrical wires of a flexible flat cable, as a suitable/workable cable type that is explicitly illustrated by Doye and facilitates vertical stacking of cables and modules, as intended by Elenbaas – Leigh combination (Fig. 3B of Leigh).
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter pertaining to claim 2 would be allowable, if Applicant rewrites it in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, provides a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to match/equate a magnitude of a resistive force applied to each leading end of the plurality of electrical wires from a mating connector to a magnitude of a resistive force applied to each leading end of the plurality of optical fibers from the mating connector. The instant application recognizes that electrical wires and optical fibers of a hybrid connector generally experience different friction forces (“fitting forces” at para. 0054 of the instant specification) and would need to matched/equalized in order to avoid unbalanced (excessive or insufficient) pressure of their leading ends that could result in poor contact and/or damage to contacting parts.
On the contrary, none of the prior art of record recognizes such problem and, consequently, does not propose a solution in the form of using different resistive forces applied to at least one of the electrical wires and the optical fibers in order to offset a difference(s) in fitting forces experienced by them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,109,452
US 9,500,815 B2
US 2010/0266245 A1
US 8,467,654 B2
US 2005/0271328 A1
US 7,481,584 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights