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 Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 § 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 1-6 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the housing includes a wall portion that protrudes from the one surface and faces the press-to-unlock portion from a rear side.” The text of the claim does not clearly indicate how “a rear side” is meant to be interpreted in light of the remaining limitations.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008).
Here, “a rear side” could be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as meaning “a rear side of the housing,” “a rear side of the locking arm,” or “a rear side of the press-to-unlock portion.” As there are at least three plausible constructions of claim 1, the claim is indefinite.
Additionally, the preamble of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a counterpart connector” is a necessary element of the claim. Applicant first recites “to which a counterpart connector can be fitted,” suggesting that the counterpart connector is not a necessary element, but instead a reference for configuration of the recited connector. The following limitation, however, recites “to which the counterpart connector is locked….” In order for the locking arm to meet the limitation “is locked,” the counterpart connector must be present. As such, the limitations of claim 1 present a conflict of scope: the preamble recites the counterpart in a non-limiting manner, while the body of the claim recites the counterpart in a limiting manner. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant recites “wherein the housing includes a finger placement face on the one surface on a rear side with respect to the wall portion.” As Applicant has already recited “a rear side” in claim 1, it is unclear whether “a rear side” as recited by claim 4 is meant to refer back to the limitation of claim 1 or to instead establish another instance of “a rear side.” Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “a pair of side wall portions that protrude from left and right sides of the locking arm on the one surface.” It is unclear from the instant language whether the side wall portions “protrude from” (i.e., extend away from a surface of) the locking arm or the one surface. As recited, the side wall portions must extend from the locking arm. This, however, conflicts with the disclosure as filed which clearly shows the side walls extending from the one surface (see FIG 1, where side wall portions 35, 36 are provided on surface 25 and have no direct physical connection to locking arm 28). As there are at least two plausible constructions of claim 5, the claim is indefinite. As best understood by Examiner, the claim should instead recite “a pair of side wall portions that protrude from the one surface on a respective left side and right side of the locking arm.” Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, fails to cure its deficiencies, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “wherein one end portion of left and right end portions of the wall portion is coupled to the one of the side wall portions….” There is not appropriate antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 5 recites “at least one of the pair of side wall portions” being coupled to the wall portion. If this is the limitation that claim 6 means to refer back to, Applicant should utilize the language of the existing claim rather than creating new, ambiguous language. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376522 (“Kida”).
Regarding claim 1, Kida discloses:
A connector (FIG 1) comprising a housing (FIG 3A:10) to which a counterpart connector (FIG 2B:40) can be fitted from a front side (as shown in FIGS 1-2),
wherein the housing (10) includes a locking arm (21) to which the counterpart connector is locked (as seen in FIG 6),
the locking arm extends in a front-rear direction (see FIG 6) above one surface (10a) of the housing (10), is elastically deformable (paras. [0029-30]) in a direction in which the locking arm approaches the one surface (as shown in FIG 7B) of the housing (10), and includes a press-to-unlock portion (23) capable of being pressed toward the one surface of the housing (as shown in FIG 7B), and
the housing includes a wall portion (FIG 3A, connecting portion 15, along with forward surfaces of side walls 17 and 19, may be reasonably interpreted as “a wall portion”) that protrudes from the one surface (see FIGS 3A and 3B, where forward surfaces of walls 17 and 19 extend upwardly from surface 10a before joining with connecting portion 15) and faces the press-to-unlock portion (a lower surface of connecting portion 15 faces an upper surface of the press-to-unlock portion, as is shown by FIGS 3A and 3B) from a rear side (wall surfaces and connecting portion 15 are provided on a rear half of connector 10, and thus may be interpreted as being on “a rear side” as presently recited).
Regarding claim 2, Kida discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a protrusion size (i.e., “a height”) of the wall portion from the one surface is larger than a distance from the one surface to a pressing surface (upper surface of 23) of the press-to-unlock portion (as seen in FIG 2B, the walls extend higher than the upper surface of 23).
Regarding claim 3, Kida discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a width in a left-right direction of the wall portion is larger than a width in the left-right direction of the press-to-unlock portion (as see in FIGS 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 4, Kida discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the housing including a finger placement face (a rearward portion of surface 10a, as indicated by FIG 3A, may be reasonably interpreted as “a finger placement face” because a signer may be placed on the rearward portion of surface 10a) on the one surface (10a) on a rear side with respect to the wall portion (as seen in FIG 3A, the rearward portion of surface 10a is positioned more toward the rear of connector 10 than wall surfaces and connecting portion 15).
Regarding claim 5, Kida discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the housing including a pair of side wall portions (17, 19) that protrude from the one surface (10a, as shown in FIGS 3A, 3B) on a left and right side of the locking arm (as shown by FIGS 3A, 3B), and at least one of the pair of side wall portions is coupled to the wall portion (as shown by FIGS 3A, 3B).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kida in view common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Kida discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 but does not disclose a first end portion of the wall portion being coupled to the at least one of the side wall portions while a second end portion of the wall portion is separated from a second one of the at least one side wall portions to form an unlocking space between the second one and the wall portion.
This recited configuration is best seen in instant FIGS 1, 2, and 4. As seen therein, “unlocking space” 39 enables an operator to press the press-to-unlock portion from the side rather than from the top. Instant paragraphs [0019-20] state that “the wall portion faces the press-to-unlock portion from the rear side and thus the wall portion hinders and makes it difficult to press the press-to-unlock portion” (emphasis by Examiner).
Indeed, it is immediately apparent from the various instant figures that, even if utilizing unlocking space 39, an operator must nonetheless press the press-to-unlock portion from a top side. This is best shown by instant FIGS 1, 4, and 6; there is, factually, no way to press the press-to-unlock portion without pressing from the top. As may be inferred from instant FIG 6, the locking arm must bend or rotate forward relative the housing due to placement of leg portion 29. It is neither discussed nor apparent how attempting to press down on the press-to-unlock portion from the side (i.e., through unlocking space 39) would be easier or more convenient than simply pressing straight downward. Indeed, the amount of space between side wall portion 36 and wall portion 38 from a top side is identical to the amount of space between the housing of mating connector 70 and wall portion 38.
Moreover, the alleged “problem” contemplated by instant paragraphs [0019-20] is a problem entirely of Applicant’s own making. Applicant discloses and recites the wall 38 as a necessary element of the instant connector, but the disclosure as filed fails to discuss any beneficial purpose for said wall. Paragraph [0039] states that “finger placement face 43 has an area…that allows an operator to place a finger on the rear side of the wall portion 38,” but this does not constitute a purpose of benefit of wall 38. The finger is placed on surface 43, not on a surface of the wall 38. Thus, wall 38 is not clearly disclosed as serving any purpose other than mere design choice.
It is therefore unclear how unlocking space 39 could be interpreted as serving and critical purpose or providing any critical benefit to the instant application. It would appear that, based on the instant disclosure, the provision and arrangement of the wall and the side walls amount to nothing more than Applicant’s design choice. There is no suggestion that the configuration bears any form of criticality to design or operation of the connector. Comparing the instant configuration to the prior art, the instant configuration amounts to little more than rearrangement of the walls surrounding a locking arm of a connector such that the opening for pressing an unlocking surface of the locking arm is moved.
The courts have previously held that rearrangement of parts does not patentably distinguish over the prior art of record unless the rearrangement would modify the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950). As discussed above, placement of the “unlocking space” on a side of the press-to-unlock portion completely fails to modify how the claimed connector would function because the operator would nonetheless having to press downward on the surface.
The question thus becomes whether there is any motivation to rearrange the walls of Kida such that an opening in vertical surfaces of the walls is provided on a left or a right side of the press-to-unlock surface rather than on a rear side of the press-to-unlock surface.
While neither Kida nor the instant application appear to discuss intended applications for either connector, it is plausible and conceivable that such connectors may be placed in a housing with a limited physical space. For example, the connector of Kida could be plugged into its mating connector adjacent to a wall of the housing, where the wall is positioned on a rear side of the connector and perpendicular to a front-rear direction of the connector. Such a configuration would make it difficult for an operator to press down on the press-to-unlock surface of Kida due to a lack of clearance between the connector and the wall. One of ordinary skill may, therefore, seek to reposition the rearward opening to an appropriate left or right side of the press-to-unlock surface for the purposes of providing better access to the surface and more clearance between the connector and adjacent wall, thereby facilitating easier insertion or removal of the connector.
In view of the foregoing, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Kida such that the walls surrounding locking arm and the press-to-unlock surface are configured such that only one side wall portion is connected to the wall portion and a gap is formed between the other side wall portion and the wall portion for the purposes of enabling access to the press-to-unlock surface from a different angle, thereby enabling the connector to be used in low clearance housings where pushing the surface from the rear side of the connector is difficult or impossible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights