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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/30/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 11, 13, 15, 18-19, and 21-23 have been canceled. Claims 24 and 25 have been added. Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14, and 24 have been examined on the merits. Claim 25 will not be examined due to its dependency to withdrawn claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the amendments to
the specification are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the previous drawing objections are persuasive. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 “eight contact petals spaced at 45 degree intervals around the tubular portion” of claim 12 and “the regular polygonal tubular shape is an octagonal tubular shape” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 has been amended to recite: “wherein the plurality of contact petals include four eight contact petals spaced at [[90]] 45 degree intervals around the tubular portion”. Paragraph 00035 discloses: “Another non-limiting example of the electrical contact 202 is shown in Fig. 5… This electrical contact 202 mainly differs from the electrical contact 102 shown in Figs. 3 and 4A-4B in that the tubular portion 210 has a regular polygonal tubular shape, e.g., octagonal in the illustrated example, rather than the cylindrical tubular shape of the tubular portion 110.…In addition, the contact petals 212 of this electrical contact 202 all have the same shape in contrast to the contact petals 112 of the electrical contact 102 in which the contact petals 112A, 112B that are located adjacent the seam 126 have a different shape than the other contact petals 112C, 112D as best shown in Fig. 4B”. Paragraph 00013 discloses: “the plurality of contact petals include four contact petals spaced at 90 degree intervals around the tubular portion.”. Fig. 5 shows six contact petals (not eight) resembling a hexagonal shape. No figure in the drawings show the 8 contact petals as required by the claim. The specification only discloses the degree intervals of a four petal configuration. It cannot be assumed the spacing of eight petals, based on solely geometry, would result in 45 degree intervals. Since there is no drawing clearly showing the 8 contact petals, the claim’s required “45 degree intervals” cannot be determined. Therefore, it’s new matter.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 is written to depend on claim 11. Claim 11 has been canceled. It is unclear which claim 12 is supposed to depend on. For examination purposes, claim 12 has been interpreted to depend on clam 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), another embodiment of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), herein referred to as “Yamamoto Secondary”, and MacLellan (U.S. Patent No. 5,273,455 A).
Referring to claim 1: Yamamoto et al. teaches an electrical assembly (40, 52 Figs. 1, 6-23), comprising: an electrical conductor (40 Figs. 1, 6-20) having a planar portion (planar portion of 42 Figs. 6-8, 15, 18-20) and defining a bore hole (51 Figs. 6-8, 13, 18-20) extending through (shown in Figs. 6-8, 13, 18-20) the planar portion (planar portion of 42 Figs. 6-8, 15, 18-20), and an electrical contact (52 Fig. 22) having a tubular portion (52a Fig. 22)
disposed within (shown in Figs. 14 and 16) the bore hole (51 Figs. 6-8, 13, 18-20) and a plurality of contact petals (52f Fig. 22; “an almost annular flange 52f “ [0078]) extending radially from the tubular portion (52a Fig. 22),
the plurality of contact petals being in electrical contact (“the spring body 52a is formed by, for example, cylindrically bending a stainless plate” [0053]) with the electrical conductor (40 Figs. 1, 6-20; electrically conductive and in direct contact with conductor in figure 16),
But is silent on a tubular portion specifically having a regular polygonal tubular shape and the plurality of contact petals being folded back onto themselves
Yamamoto Secondary teaches a similar configuration contact petal (52c Fig. 2-A inserted below) being folded back onto themselves (shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of contact petals of Yamamoto et al. with the folded back configuration as taught by Yamamoto Secondary for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, using ductile metals for establishing an electrical connection.
MacLellan in an analogous electrical assembly (20 Fig. 1A) wherein the similar configuration tubular portion (24/46 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, and 3; “The terminals 22 and 24 are not limited to rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 1. In FIG. 2, inserted terminal 40 and receiving terminal 42 are triangular in crosssection. In FIG. 3, inserted terminal 44 and receiving terminal 46 are octagonal in cross-section.” Col. 3, lines 32-37) specifically having a regular polygonal tubular shape (shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubular portion of Yamamoto as modified with the polygonal shape as taught by MacLellan for the purpose of having an alternate shape, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
PNG
media_image1.png
752
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 5: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 1. wherein the electrical contact (52 Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) is formed from a single piece of sheet metal (“the spring body 52a is formed by, for example, cylindrically bending a stainless plate” [0053]; “The flange 52f is formed integrally with the spring body 52a and is bent simultaneously with the spring body 52a.” [0078] of Yamamoto et al.).
Referring to claim 9: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 1, wherein the tubular portion (52a Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) is formed to exert a hoop force (outward force against inner walls of the bore hole; “as the spring body 52a is pushed into the inner hole of the engagement part 46, the spring body 52a is elastically deformed by being pressed from the outer circumference side in such a manner that the width of the slit 54 becomes narrow,” [0062] of Yamamoto et al.) against inner walls of the bore hole (51 Figs. 6-8, 13, 18-20 of Yamamoto et al.).
Referring to claim 10: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of contact petals (52f Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) has a U-shaped slot (SL Fig. 1-A inserted below of Yamamoto et al.) between them.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But is silent on the petals has a U-shaped slot specifically having a rounded closed end between them.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact petals of Yamamoto et al. as modified with different shapes for the purpose of having an alternate structure which can accommodate different sized attachments, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Referring to claim 12: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 11, wherein the plurality of contact petals (52f Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) include four contact petals spaced at 90 degree intervals (shown in Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) around the tubular portion (52a Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.).
But is silent on wherein the plurality of contact petals specifically include eight contact petals specifically spaced at 45 degree intervals around the tubular portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of contact petals to specifically have 8 for the purpose of having more foldable contact petals which can be molded as fit as desired, and, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: contact petals spaced at less than 45 degree intervals, more than 45 degree intervals, or equal to 45 degree intervals. Therefore, modifying contact pedals intervals of Yamamoto et al. as modified with 45 degree intervals, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the electrical assembly of Yamamoto et al. as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Therefore, it also would have been obvious to have modified the contact pedal spacing of Yamamoto et al. as modified with specifically 45 degree intervals for the purpose of having adequate spacing between the pedals and allowing equal flexibility between the neighboring pedal.
Referring to claim 14: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of contact petals (52f Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.) has the same shape (shown in Fig. 22 of Yamamoto et al.).
Referring to claim 24: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 1, wherein the regular polygonal tubular shape (24/46 Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 f MacLellan) is an octagonal tubular shape (shown in Fig. 3 of MacLellan).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), another embodiment of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), herein referred to as “Yamamoto Secondary”, and MacLellan (U.S. Patent No. 5,273,455 A), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Manor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,280,263 B1).
Referring to claim 6: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 5, but is silent on wherein the electrical contact is formed using a progressive die.
Manor et al. teaches an analogous electrical contact (10 Fig. 1) specifically formed using a progressive die (Col. 3, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method of the electrical contact as taught by Manor et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate form of assembling the structure which lowers the cost of production.
Referring to claim 8: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 5, but is silent on wherein the sheet metal is a tin plated copper- based alloy.
Manor et al. teaches an analogous electrical assembly (10 Fig. 1) wherein the sheet metal is a tin plated copper- based alloy (Col. 2, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Yamamoto et al. as modified with the tin plated copper- based alloy as taught by Manor et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate material which is electrically conductive.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), another embodiment of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0140393 A1), herein referred to as “Yamamoto Secondary”, and MacLellan (U.S. Patent No. 5,273,455 A), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Wiley (U.S. Patent No. 3,906,144 A).
Referring to claim 7: Yamamoto et al. as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 5, wherein the sheet metal is a silver plated spring steel alloy.
Wiley teaches an analogous electrical connection (17 Fig. 1) wherein the sheet metal is a silver plated spring steel alloy (Col. 2, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Yamamoto et al. as modified with the silver plated spring steel alloy as taught by Wiley for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate electrically conductive material.
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights