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 .
DETAILED ACTION
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
This is a Final Action.
The current application filed April 2, 2025 is a reissue application of 17/359,236 (U.S. Patent No. 11,621,525 issued April 4, 2023, hereinafter “the ‘525 patent”).
Claims 1-26 were initially pending in the application. Claim 27-42 were added in a preliminary amendment filed April 2, 2025.
In the most recent amendment filed July 24, 2026, new versions of claims 27-41 have been added. Claims 1-41 are pending, claims 1, 21, 27, and 40 are independent claims. This amendment has been entered.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,621,525 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed July 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 27-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(II)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(II)(A)) In the instant case and by way of the current amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden independent claim 1 and/or independent claim 21 with the addition of claims 27 and 40 in this reissue at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring that the apparatus includes (using claim 1 as example, similar limitations found in claim 21) “a high-speed signal area and a low-speed signal area; wherein a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of ground pins and the plurality of signal pins; the high-speed signal area comprising the plurality of ground terminals and the plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of second distances existing between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area, and the second distance is between the two adjacent ground assembling pins, or between the two adjacent signal assembling pins, or between the adjacent ground assembling pin and the signal assembling pin in the high-speed signal area; the low-speed signal area comprising a plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of third distances existing between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area, and the third distance is between the two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area; the third distance is greater than the second distance and is equal to the first distance; wherein in the high-speed signal area, a width of the ground terminal body of each of the ground terminals in the first direction is wider than a width of the signal terminal body of each of the signal terminals in the first direction since the another end of the ground terminal body comprises the plurality of ground assembling pins at intervals, and the plurality of second distances between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area are all the same.”.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(II)(B)) The record of the prior 17/359,236 application prosecution indicates that an amendment was filed along with Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on December 28, 2022. Applicant made the following amendments (using claim 1 for reference) to overcome the rejection in view of the prior art:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
356
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Applicant explicitly argued in an attempt to overcome the applied prior art references:
PNG
media_image4.png
174
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
314
632
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
348
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
...
PNG
media_image7.png
134
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(pages 14, 15, and 22, Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
filed December 22, 2022 in application 17/359,236)
Thus, at least the following limitations found in patent claim 1 that correspond to the arguments and amendments made during prosecution which state “a high-speed signal area and a low-speed signal area; wherein a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of ground pins and the plurality of signal pins; the high-speed signal area comprising the plurality of ground terminals and the plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of second distances existing between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area, and the second distance is between the two adjacent ground assembling pins, or between the two adjacent signal assembling pins, or between the adjacent ground assembling pin and the signal assembling pin in the high-speed signal area; the low-speed signal area comprising a plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of third distances existing between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area, and the third distance is between the two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area; the third distance is greater than the second distance and is equal to the first distance; wherein in the high-speed signal area, a width of the ground terminal body of each of the ground terminals in the first direction is wider than a width of the signal terminal body of each of the signal terminals in the first direction since the another end of the ground terminal body comprises the plurality of ground assembling pins at intervals, and the plurality of second distances between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area are all the same.” are considered to be a surrender-generating limitations.
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance on an argument/statement made by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. Additionally, Reissue recapture applies to related family member applications (See MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 94 USPQ2d 1598 at 1606 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (a more limited recapture rule would undercut “the rule against recapture’s public-reliance rationale” and a patent family’s entire prosecution history should be reviewed “when applying both the rule against recapture and prosecution history estoppel.”)). It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application and the patent family's prosecution for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant case the omission of the surrender-generating limitations requiring that the terminal assembly include “a high-speed signal area and a low-speed signal area; wherein a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of ground pins and the plurality of signal pins; the high-speed signal area comprising the plurality of ground terminals and the plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of second distances existing between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area, and the second distance is between the two adjacent ground assembling pins, or between the two adjacent signal assembling pins, or between the adjacent ground assembling pin and the signal assembling pin in the high-speed signal area; the low-speed signal area comprising a plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of third distances existing between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area, and the third distance is between the two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area; the third distance is greater than the second distance and is equal to the first distance; wherein in the high-speed signal area, a width of the ground terminal body of each of the ground terminals in the first direction is wider than a width of the signal terminal body of each of the signal terminals in the first direction since the another end of the ground terminal body comprises the plurality of ground assembling pins at intervals, and the plurality of second distances between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area are all the same.” equates to attempting to recapture surrendered subject matter and thus by omission some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(II)(C)) It must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added/argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it includes other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu , 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. Simply stated, claims 27-41 omit the language requiring “a high-speed signal area and a low-speed signal area; wherein a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of ground pins and the plurality of signal pins; the high-speed signal area comprising the plurality of ground terminals and the plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of second distances existing between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area, and the second distance is between the two adjacent ground assembling pins, or between the two adjacent signal assembling pins, or between the adjacent ground assembling pin and the signal assembling pin in the high-speed signal area; the low-speed signal area comprising a plurality of the signal terminals, a plurality of third distances existing between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area, and the third distance is between the two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area; the third distance is greater than the second distance and is equal to the first distance; wherein in the high-speed signal area, a width of the ground terminal body of each of the ground terminals in the first direction is wider than a width of the signal terminal body of each of the signal terminals in the first direction since the another end of the ground terminal body comprises the plurality of ground assembling pins at intervals, and the plurality of second distances between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area are all the same.” and thus would amount to impermissible recapture due to the omission of surrender-generating limitations. Additionally, reissue claims 27-41 are not materially narrowed in other respects that relate to the surrendered subject matter to avoid said impermissible recapture.
Therefore, impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is clearly present in the instant reissue application.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414). As explained above in reference to the rejection in view of impermissible recapture, the error on which the reissue is based on according to the declaration is not an error upon which reissue can be based because it amounts to impermissible recapture.
Claims 1-41 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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 27-41 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. Using claim 40 as example, the claims now state that the “plurality of first distances”, “the plurality of second distances”, and “the plurality of third distances” are all defined by what would not consist of a “plurality” of any of said distances. For example, “a plurality of third distances exist between two adjacent signal assembling pins...” as claimed is explicitly one distance of which a plurality of distances can not be derived from. The examiner strongly recommends using language similar to that found in the original claims. Additionally, the discussions of the “plurality of first distances”, “the plurality of second distances”, and “the plurality of third distances” in claims 27 and 40 contain grammatical errors. For example in claim 40, “a plurality of first distances exists between adjacent ground pin and single pin” is not clearly written. Examiner recommends the following for each of said limitations in claim 27 to overcome this rejection:
wherein a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of ground pins and the plurality of signal pins, of which each exists between two adjacent ground pins, or between adjacent ground an adjacent ground pin and signal pin, or between two adjacent signal pins;
a plurality of second distances existing between the plurality of ground assembling pins and the plurality of signal assembling pins in the high-speed signal area, of which each exists between two adjacent signal assembling pins, or between an adjacent ground assembling and signal assembling pin, or between two adjacent [signal] ground assembling pins in the high-speed signal area;a plurality of third distances existing between the plurality of signal assembling pins, of which each exists between two adjacent signal assembling pins in the low-speed signal area;
Examiner recommends the following for each of said limitations in claim 40 to overcome this rejection:
in each high-speed signal area, a plurality of first distances exist between the plurality of adjacent ground pins and signal pins of the high-speed terminals, and between the plurality of two adjacent signal pins of the high-speed signal terminals;
a plurality of second distances exist between the plurality of adjacent ground assembling pins and signal assembling pins of the high-speed signal terminals, and between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins of the high speed terminals;
in the low-speed signal area, a plurality of third distances exists between the plurality of two adjacent signal assembling pins of the low speed signal terminals;
Properly correcting these issues will result in the withdrawal of both this rejection and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 for impermissible recapture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251, improper recapture:
Applicant argues that the amendments made to the claims overcome this rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejections above, the current language of the claims creates issues of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims are most certainly attempting to broaden the surrender generating subject matter in their current condition. The examiner has recommended a proper course of action to overcome this issue. Proper correction is required.
Regarding arguments to the rejection of the reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251, improper recapture:
Applicant argues that the amendments made to the claims overcome this rejection as well.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 251 for improper recapture has not been overcome. Thus, the reissue oath/declaration remains improper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA D CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 M-F.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on (571) 272-3744. 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.
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights