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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, and 15 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first position”, and “second position” must be shown and reference character(s) provided therefor on the drawings and in the specification, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, Figure 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations: “when in the first position, the floating portion is not in thermal connection with the heat sink and the signal connector”. These limitations are not supported by the disclosure, since in the first position, the floating portion (112) is in thermal connection at least with the heat sink (125), at least via the frame (120) of the coupling device (100), thermal pad (119), cage (6), and remaining components of the structure as depicted on Fig. 6 and explained in relevant portions of the specification. To say more, analogous thermal connection is also present between the floating portion (112) and the signal connector (250) as shown on Fig. 6, since the first position said signal connector (250) is partially inserted into the cage (6) as shown on Fig. 6.
The remaining dependent claims have been also rejected since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, and 15, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations (ll. 5-6): “a coupling device configured to attach to the set of cages and extend over the open area of the cages”. Since the claim sets forth a set of cages (i.e., a plurality of cages), said “open area” is the “open area” of each cage. Therefore, the clause should be amended accordingly, e.g., “a coupling device configured to attach to the set of cages and extend over the open area of each cage”.
Similar singular/plural mismatch present throughout the claims. For example, claim 11 positively sets forth “a set of cages” (i.e., a plurality of cages). But then further down the claim recites the limitations: “wherein the one or more floating portions are configured to move from a first position to a second position upon insertion of the signal connector into a cage of the set of cages”. The claim should be amended to clearly recite the plurality of cages and should properly set forth all components associated therewith as belonging to each cage of the plurality of cages (i.e., without “one or more” limitation).
The aforementioned singular/plural mismatch should be addressed throughout all pending claims.
Furthermore, claim 11 redundantly recites the limitation “cage” with an article “a” in l. 8 of the claim, since said “cage” has been previously introduced in l. 6 of the claim.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, the claim appears to be redundant. The claim positively sets forth “a plurality of cages”. However, claim 1 already positively sets forth “a set of cages”. Furter, claim 3 recites that “the coupling device comprises a plurality of floating portions, wherein the coupling device is configured to extend over the plurality of cages.” However, claim 1 already recites similar subject matter in ll. 4-8.
Appropriate corrections are required. The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus again requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims (specifically pertained to singular/plural mismatch), but not made of record above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “the floating portion 112 is illustrated in the "first position" at least in Figures 2 and 6. It is also clear to one of skill in the art from Figure 6 that as connector 250 moves to the right and contacts floating portion 112, connector 250 causes floating portion 112 to move upwards to the "second position." Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that each claim element is illustrated as necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. (See 35 U.S.C. 113, 37 CFR §1.81(a)). Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the objections.”
In response the Office requests the Applicant to provide clear marking on Fig. 6 that “the first position” is depicted. The specification should be amended accordingly. Furter, regarding “the second position”, the position is not shown on the figures at all and must be shown. Therefore, the objection still stands.
Furthermore, regarding the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, the amendment is inadequate to obviate the rejection, and therefore the rejection is maintained as explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights