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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on February 10, 2026 for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 based on parent Application No. 17/895654 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
The following rejection are overcome:
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cesari et al. CA2998721 A1.
Claim(s) 2 & 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesari et al. CA2998721 A1.
Claim(s) 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Date et al. U. S. 5,98,843.
Claim(s) 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Date et al. U.S. 5,98,843 in view of MacDonald CA 2186789C.
Claims 1-7 are allowed. Claims 8-20 are newly rejected as follows:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed. Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record, because the prior art is silent to an electrical contact assembly, comprising: a first component including a bottom surface, an upper side wall extending from the bottom surface, and a contact edge defined by the upper side wall and opposite the bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface and the upper side wall enclose a mating cavity, wherein the bottom surface defines a first diameter that is greater than a second diameter defined by the contact edge; and a second component including a stem having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein a flange extends from the second end and defines an electrical contact surface area, and wherein the first end defines a mating surface that is configured to abut the bottom surface and be coupled to the first component within the mating cavity.
The prior art, such as Cesari et al. CA2998721 A1, teaches an electrical contact assembly (2: Fig.2), comprising: a first component (12: Fig.2) including an upper side wall defining a mating cavity (34: Fig.2); and a second component (14: Fig.2) including a stem (44: Fig.2) having a first end (below 42: Fig.2) and a second end (above 50: Fig.2). However, the reference is silent to: a contact edge defined by the upper side wall and opposite the bottom surface; nor a flange extending from the second end and defining an electrical contact surface area, and wherein the first end defines a mating surface that is configured to abut the bottom surface and be coupled to the first component within the mating cavity. Therefore, the instant claim is patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Claims 2-7 are allowable based on dependency to claim 1.
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) 8 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dohertyet al. US-5354221-A.
With respect to claim 8, Doherty teaches an electrical contact assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: a first component including a first electrical contact surface (17; Fig. 1); and a second component (11; Fig. 1) including a stem (base receptacle 33; Fig. 1) and a flange extending radially outward from the stem (flange rim below; Fig. 1), wherein the flange is configured to be in contact with an electrical component (CRT stem 13; Fig. 1) to create an electrical pathway from the electrical component to the second component (the end of the electrical component forms a flange which is electrically connected to the second component; Fig. 1), the stem defining a second electrical contact surface (contact surface supports the base of protrusions 15a & 15f; Fig. 1), wherein the second electrical contact surface includes a plurality of protrusions (protrusions 15a & 15f; Fig. 1), and wherein the second component is configured to be permanently coupled to the first component (connections are capable of being temporarily or permanently attached; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, an electrical contact assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: a first component including a first electrical contact surface (17; Fig. 1), the first component defined by a first length and a first width (length and width orientation is relative but displayed by physical boundaries; Fig. 1); and a second component (11; Fig. 1) including a stem (base receptacle 33; Fig. 1) and a flange extending radially outward from the stem (flange rim below; Fig. 1), the stem defining a second electrical contact surface that engages the first electrical contact surface and creates an electrical pathway from the flange to the first component (the end of the electrical component forms a flange which is electrically connected to the second component; contact surface supports the base of protrusions 15a & 15f; Fig. 1;Fig. 1), wherein the second electrical contact surface includes a plurality of protrusions (protrusions 15a & 15f; Fig. 1).
Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by Doherty.
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) 9-10, 12 & 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. US-5354221-A.
Doherty teaches an electrical contact assembly (Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including the second electrical contact surface including a plurality of protrusions (protrusions 15a & 15f; Fig. 1). With respect to the first component being configured to be coupled to the second component, wherein electricity is configured to be passed through the first component to the second component (15a to 19a and 15f to 19f; Fig. 1), wherein the electrical contact assembly is configured to be mounted to an enclosure (the device is capable of mounting as a physical structure; Fig. 1; claim 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Doherty does not teach with sufficient specificity: the plurality of protrusions are provided in a unit density of one protrusion per square millimeter along the second electrical contact surface (claim 9); the first component having a first surface area, the second component having a second surface area, wherein the second component includes a third surface area and a fourth surface area, the third surface area being less or greater than the second surface area, wherein a sum of the third surface area and the fourth surface area is greater than or equal to the second surface area, and wherein the second, third, and fourth surface areas are spaced apart from one another (claim 10); wherein a hermetic seal is formed by the electrical contact assembly to at least partially prevent ingress or egress relative to the enclosure (claim 12); the first length and the first width define a shape of the first component, and a shape of the second component is identical to the shape of the first component (claim 16); a shape of the stem is identical to the shape of the first component and second component (claim 17); a size of the second component is smaller than a size of the first component (claim 18).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the plurality of protrusions being provided in a unit density of one protrusion per square millimeter along the second electrical contact surface (claim 9); of Doherty to increase the power transfer rate. Furthermore, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04. Lastly, duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to the first component having a first surface area, the second component having a second surface area, wherein the second component is configured to be permanently coupled to the first component, wherein the second component includes a third surface area and a fourth surface area, the third surface area being less or greater than the second surface area, wherein a sum of the third surface area and the fourth surface area is greater than or equal to the second surface area, and wherein the second, third, and fourth surface areas are spaced apart from one another (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to a hermetic seal being formed by the electrical contact assembly to at least partially prevent ingress or egress relative to the enclosure (claim 12); it would be obvious for the seal in the electrical contact of Doherty to be hermetic, to protect the user and obviate fires.
With respect to the first length and the first width define a shape of the first component, and a shape of the second component is identical to the shape of the first component (claim 16); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty, as change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to a shape of the stem bring identical to the shape of the first component and second component (claim 17); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty, as change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to a size of the second component being smaller than a size of the first component (claim 18); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the second component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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) 11, 13, 15, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. US-5354221-A in view of WU et al. VN-10024235-B.
Doherty teaches an electrical contact assembly (Fig. 1), as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to the first component and the second component are coupled along the first and second electrical contact surfaces (15a to 19a and 15f to 19f; Fig. 1), the second component establishing at least two electrical pathways toward the first component (15a and 15f; Fig. 1; claim 11).
Doherty does not teach or suggest: a first pathway extending from a first contact area that is disposed concentrically about and spaced apart from a second contact area, wherein a second pathway extends from the second contact area, and wherein the first and second pathways converge within the two-piece assembly (claim 11); the second electrical contact surface of the stem is disposed concentrically with the first electrical contact surface of the first component (claim 13); the second component further comprises a central portion and a rim disposed opposite the stem, the central portion and the rim establishing an electrical pathway between the first and second electrical contact surface (claim 15); the first component and the second component are coupled along the first and second electrical contact surfaces, the second component establishing at least two electrical pathways toward the first component, wherein a first pathway extends from a first contact area that is disposed concentrically about and spaced apart from a second contact area, wherein a second pathway extends from the second contact area, and wherein the first and second pathways converge within the electrical contact assembly (claim 19); first component is axially aligned with the second component (claim 20).
WU teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the second component establishing at least two electrical pathways toward the first component, wherein a first pathway extending from a first contact area (104 of 120; Fig. 4) that is disposed concentrically about and spaced apart from a second contact area (102 of 116; Fig. 4; claims 11 & 19); the second component further comprises a central portion (116; Fig. 4) and a rim (120; Fig. 4) disposed opposite the stem (100; claim 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Doherty and WU are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating electrical contact assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the second component establishing at least two electrical pathways toward the first component, wherein a first pathway extending from a first contact area that is disposed concentrically about and spaced apart from a second contact area of Wu, in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty, in order to improve electrical connection between mating parts. Furthermore, a change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is well known in the art that the shape of the male and female plug configurations must coincide in shape to mate and function. The skilled artisan recognizes that changes in shape may be made to improve efficiency of connectivity. Therefore, unless there is an unexpected ameliorative result of the mating shape, the claim is obvious. Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to the first pathway extending from a first contact area that is disposed concentrically about and spaced apart from a second contact area, wherein a second pathway extends from the second contact area, and wherein the first and second pathways converge within the two-piece assembly (claims 11 & 19); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty in view of Wu, as the conductive portions of the second component (102 & 104 of Wu) and electrical contacts (19a & 19f of Doherty) complete the circuit. Furthermore, a change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is well known in the art that the shape of the male and female plug configurations must coincide in shape to mate and function. The skilled artisan recognizes that changes in shape may be made to improve efficiency of connectivity. Therefore, unless there is an unexpected ameliorative result of the mating shape, the claim is obvious. Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to the second electrical contact surface of the stem being disposed concentrically with the first electrical contact surface of the first component (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty in view of Wu, in order to form mating electrical connections. The conductive portions of the second component (102 & 104 of Wu) and electrical contacts (19a & 19f of Doherty) complete the circuit. It is well known in the art that the shape of the male and female plug configurations must coincide in shape to mate and function. The skilled artisan recognizes that changes in shape may be made to improve efficiency of connectivity. Therefore, unless there is an unexpected ameliorative result of the mating shape, the claim is obvious. Furthermore, a change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to the central portion and the rim establishing an electrical pathway between the first and second electrical contact surface (claim 15); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty in view of Wu, as the conductive portions of the second component (102 & 104 of Wu) and electrical contacts (19a & 19f of Doherty) complete the circuit. Furthermore, a change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is well known in the art that the shape of the male and female plug configurations must coincide in shape to mate and function. The skilled artisan recognizes that changes in shape may be made to improve efficiency of connectivity. Therefore, unless there is an unexpected ameliorative result of the mating shape, the claim is obvious. Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to first component being axially aligned with the second component (claim 20); it would have been obvious in the electrical contact assembly of Doherty in view of Wu, as the conductive portions of the second component (102 & 104 of Wu) and electrical contacts (19a & 19f of Doherty) complete the circuit. Furthermore, a change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is well known in the art that the shape of the male and female plug configurations must coincide in shape to mate and function. The skilled artisan recognizes that changes in shape may be made to improve efficiency of connectivity. Therefore, unless there is an unexpected ameliorative result of the mating shape, the claim is obvious. Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that Cesari et al. CA2998721 A1 does not teach an electrical contact assembly (2: Fig.2), comprising: a contact edge defined by the upper side wall and opposite the bottom surface; nor a flange extending from the second end and defining an electrical contact surface area, and wherein the first end defines a mating surface that is configured to abut the bottom surface and be coupled to the first component within the mating cavity. This assertion is correct and all previously pending rejections over claim 1 & dependents are overcome.
Applicant asserts Date et al. U.S. 5,98,843 and MacDonald CA 2186789C, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest a flange that is configured to be in contact with an electrical component to create an electrical pathway from the electrical component to a second component, as recited in claims 8 & 14. This assertion is correct and all previously pending rejections over claims 8 & 14 & dependents are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights