DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines are not solid black lines as required by 37 CFR 1.84.
PNG
media_image1.png
180
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaccaro et al. US 9419351 (“Vaccaro”).
Regarding claim 12, Vaccaro discloses a signal terminal 1 (see figure 12) for a charging base (i.e. capable of being used in a charging base), comprising:.
a main body (labeled MB below); and
a guide leg 5 extending from an end of the main body and contracting radially inward relative to an outer wall of the main body,
the guide leg adapted to bias (i.e., capable of biasing) a spring sheet of a lead frame and
guide the outer wall of the main body to be inserted into contact with the spring sheet.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 13, the guide leg extends from a rear end of the main body of each of the signal terminals.
Per claim 14, Vaccaro discloses a second guide leg adapted to bias (i.e., capable of biasing) a respective one of a pair of the spring sheets of the lead frame.
Per claim 15, the pair of guide legs are arranged radially opposite to each other.
Per claim 16, the main body of each signal terminal is substantially cylindrical.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osawa US 9478921 in view of Vaccaro et al. US 9419351 (“Vaccaro”). Regarding claim 1, Osawa discloses a charging end assembly detachably connectable to a connecting end assembly to form the charging base, including:
a charging end housing 30 defining a plurality of first openings (e.g. at 32B); and
a plurality of signal terminals (31B, i.e., terminals capable of transmitting signals) received in a corresponding one of the plurality of
first openings 32B,
each signal terminal having a main body (labeled MB below) and a wire connecting part (labeled WCP below, note that the terminals are connected to wires, col. 3, lines 15-20).
Osawa does not disclose clearly how the signal terminals 31B are connected to wires at the wire connecting part and does not show in particular guide legs.
Vaccaro discloses terminals (1, see figure 12) for transmitting signals, each signal terminal having: a main body (labeled MB above); and
a guide leg 5 extending from an end of the main body and contracting radially
inward relative to an outer wall of the main body (col. 3, lines 10-15), the guide leg adapted to bias (i.e. capable of biasing) a spring sheet of a lead frame and guide the outer wall of the main body.
It would have been obvious to form the wire connecting portion of the Osawa signal terminals 31B with inwardly tapered guide legs 5 as taught in Vaccaro. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a connection between the wire and terminal that has reduced spurious RF signals or PIM (Vaccaro col. 1, lines 15-45) and improved uniform circumferential contact between the wire and signal terminal as taught in Vaccaro (Vaccaro col. 1, lines 15-45). The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image3.png
1274
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Vaccaro and Osawa do not disclose that the signal terminals are stamped integrated parts. The addition of a method step in a product claim, which product is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the old product. In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969). “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113. In this case, the process by which the signal terminal is made, whether by stamping or other process, would have been a matter of engineering design choice.
Per claim 8, the Vaccaro and Osawa terminal main bodies are
substantially cylindrical.
Regarding claim 9, Osawa discloses a connecting end assembly 70 detachably connected to the charging end assembly and including a connecting end housing 71 defining a plurality of second openings 73B receiving respective front ends of each of the plurality of
signal terminals.
Regarding claim 11, Osawa does not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of signal
terminals is detachably fixed in one of the plurality of first openings, though they appear to be as disclosed in the figures. It would have been obvious to make the terminals detachably as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The reason for doing so would have been to simplify assembly and/or repair of the connector.
Regarding claim 17, Osawa discloses a charging base, comprising:
a charging end assembly including:
a charging end housing 30 defining a plurality of first openings (32B) formed therethrough; and
a plurality of signal terminals (31B, i.e., terminals capable of transmitting signals) arranged within the plurality of first openings,
each signal terminal having a main body (labeled MB above), and
a connecting end 70 assembly detachably connected to the charging end assembly and
including a connecting end 71 housing defining a plurality of second openings 73B, with the charging end assembly connected to the connecting end assembly, the plurality of signal terminals arranged within respective ones of the second openings.
Osawa does not disclose clearly how the signal terminals 31B are connected to wires at the wire connecting part and does not show in particular guide legs.
Vaccaro discloses terminals (1, see figure 12) for transmitting signals, each signal terminal having: a main body (labeled MB above); and
a guide leg 5 extending from an end of the main body and contracting radially
inward relative to an outer wall of the main body (col. 3, lines 10-15), the guide leg adapted to bias (i.e. capable of biasing) a spring sheet of a lead frame and guide the outer wall of the main body.
It would have been obvious to form the wire connecting portion of the Osawa signal terminals 31B with inwardly tapered guide legs 5 as taught in Vaccaro. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a connection between the wire and terminal that has reduced spurious RF signals or PIM (Vaccaro col. 1, lines 15-45) and improved uniform circumferential contact between the wire and signal terminal as taught in Vaccaro (Vaccaro col. 1, lines 15-45). The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Osawa does not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of signal
terminals is detachably fixed in one of the plurality of first openings, though they appear to be as disclosed in the figures. It would have been obvious to make the terminals detachably as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The reason for doing so would have been to simplify assembly and/or repair of the connector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 10, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834