Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/897,996

FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE TERMINAL

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Aug 29, 2022
Priority
Oct 27, 2021 — provisional 63/272,481
Examiner
MANGOT, GREGORY LAWRENCE
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
42 granted / 64 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
81
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 64 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant has cancelled claims 4 and 14, rendering the objection to the drawings in the previous action moot. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Meixner (US 2020/0373698 A1). Regarding claim 1: Meixner (See marked version of figure 8 below) teaches a terminal for electrical connection to a device and a substrate, wherein the terminal comprises: a connecting end (i.e. CO) configured to be received in a housing and to be electrically coupled with the device; a midsection (i.e. M) extending from the connecting end; and a crimping end (i.e. C) extending from the midsection opposite the connecting end, wherein the crimping end is configured to at least one of crimp or pinch the substrate (i.e. C is configured to pinch a substrate), wherein at least two of the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are conductive and formed together as a single, unitary component (i.e. as in the figure below). PNG media_image1.png 806 904 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are devoid of a stranded wire to provide a conductive pathway between the housing and the substrate (i.e. CO, M, and C do not comprise a stranded wire). Regarding claim 3: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are conductive and formed together as the single, unitary component (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 5: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the connecting end of the terminal comprises a plurality of connecting ends (i.e. 7) configured to be received in a plurality of corresponding channels (i.e. as 7 is configured to be received in) of the housing. Regarding claim 6: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the midsection of the terminal is a rigid electrical conductor (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 7: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the midsection of the terminal is firmly fixed to the connecting end and the crimping end (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 8: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the midsection of the terminal is substantially a half-cylindrical shape (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 9: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the crimping end comprises one or more piercing tines (i.e. 7) to secure the terminal to the substrate. Regarding claim 10: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the terminal of claim 1, wherein the connecting end comprises a male end or a female end (i.e. CO configured to be received in a female end of a housing) configured to be connected to a female end or a male end of the housing, respectively. Regarding claim 11: Meixner (Figure above) teaches a circuit assembly (i.e. assembly of figure 1), comprising: a terminal (i.e. 30) comprising a connecting end (i.e. CO), a midsection (i.e. M), and a crimping end (i.e. C), wherein the crimping end is disposed opposite the connecting end relative to the midsection, wherein the midsection is adapted to prevent damage to the terminal (i.e. as M is adapted), wherein the connecting end is configured to be received in a housing (i.e. as CO is configured), and wherein the crimping end is configured to at least one of crimp or pinch (i.e. as C is configured) a substrate, wherein at least two of the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are conductive and formed together as a single, unitary component (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 12: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are devoid of a stranded wire (i.e. CO, M, and C do not comprise a stranded wire) to provide a conductive pathway between the housing and the substrate. Regarding claim 13: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the connecting end, the midsection, and the crimping end are conductive and formed together as the single, unitary component (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 16: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the midsection of the terminal is a rigid electrical conductor (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 17: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the midsection of the terminal is firmly fixed to the connecting end and the crimping end (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 18: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the midsection of the terminal is substantially a half-cylindrical shape (i.e. as in the figure above). Regarding claim 19: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the crimping end comprises one or more piercing tines (i.e. 7) to secure the terminal to the substrate. Regarding claim 20: Meixner (Figure above) teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, wherein the connecting end comprises a male end or a female end (i.e. CO configured to be received in a female end of a housing) configured to be connected to a female and or a male end of the housing, respectively. 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 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meixner in view of Zhixiong (CN2615891Y). Regarding claim 15: Meixner teaches the circuit assembly of claim 11, but does not specifically teach wherein the connecting end of the terminal comprises a plurality of connecting ends configured to be received in a plurality of corresponding channels of the housing. However, Zhixiong (Figure 3) teaches wherein the connecting end of the terminal comprises a plurality of connecting ends (i.e. plurality of 3) configured to be received in a plurality of corresponding channels of the housing (i.e. as 3 are configured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connecting end taught by Meixner to comprise a plurality of connecting ends as taught by Zhixiong so as to configure the terminal to be able to connect to the desired number of housing channels. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Meixner is silent regarding a connecting end configured to be received in a housing, a midsection, and a crimping end as claimed in claims 1 and 11. Claim 1 only positively recites a terminal and claim 11 only positively recites a circuit assembly, the circuit assembly comprising only a terminal. In neither claim 1 nor claim 11 is the housing positively recited. Therefore, to anticipate the claims, the prior art need only teach a connecting end inherently receivable in a housing. Meixner indeed teaches a connecting end inherently receivable in a housing. A terminal which is taught to be received on a battery unit is inherently receivable in a housing. In addition, the prior art is saturated with analogous terminals having connecting ends received or configured to be received in housings. See at least Favero (US 2019/0288417 A1), Fan (US 2017/0256875 A1), Leibig (US 2021/0091510 A1), Nagasaka (US 2020/0083624 A1), and Olsson (US 3696319), who all teach a connecting end of a terminal implicitly or explicitly receivable in a housing. Furthermore, as described in MPEP 2125, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, Meixner need not specifically describe the CO or M portions of the terminal in the specification for the features to be apparent in the figures. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET. 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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. /GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 8 earlier events
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Apr 09, 2026
Response Filed
May 12, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12712294
CABLE CONNECTING ASSEMBLY FOR MACHINE
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12706412
CONNECTOR
3y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12706400
Arrangement made up of at least a clamping spring and a retaining spring and a spring-force clamp for conductors
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12700705
ELECTRICAL CONNECTION DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12683304
Contact spring assembly for the self-locking contacting of a wire of an electrical conductor
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 64 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month