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Claims 9, 15, 18 and 20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/21/2025.
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, 6, 8, 14, 21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raabe (US 8,297,901) in view of Hirano et al. (US 3,803,538) and Diconne et al. (US 6,231,405).
Regarding claim 1, Raabe discloses a terminal device (110), comprising: a unitary, one-piece body (110) having a proximal portion (left side in Fig. 2A), a central portion (inside 108), and a distal portion (right side in Fig. 2A); the distal portion of the body extending at a first angle with respect to the central portion and configured to receive a connector exterior to a cavity of a terminal (intended use); the proximal portion extending at a second angle with respect to the central portion of the terminal and defining a retainer (bent portion of left side) to retain the terminal device at least partially in the cavity of the terminal (intended use).
Hirano teaches a terminal device (3) with two wire guides (see Fig. 1) extending down from opposing edges of the central portion (around 4) terminating at respective distal ends, and positioned laterally outside of a bottom surface of the central portion, including a first wire guide (left) having a first inner surface and a second wire guide (right) having a second inner surface, facing the first inner surface, to engage at least partially around a wire (intended use), wherein the first inner surface is a planar surface extending to the distal end of the first wire guide and the second inner surface is a planar surface extending to the distal end of the second wire guide (Fig. 1), wherein a distance between the first inner surface and the second inner surface, along an entire length of the two wire guides from the opposing edges of the central portion to the distal ends of the two wire guides, is constant and equal to or greater than a width of the bottom surface of the central portion measured between the opposing edges (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use wire guides, as taught by Latour, in order to center and stabilize the wire.
Diconne teaches a plurality of ribs (12) formed integrally on the bottom surface of the central portion (10) extending between the first inner surface of the first wire guide and the second inner surface of the second wire guide, each of the plurality of ribs being space apart from one another (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use ribs, as taught by Diconne, in order to increase friction and retention.
Raabe, as modified, discloses substantially the claimed invention except the lengths of the portions. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design to form the central portion having a length greater than a length of the proximal portion and a length of the distal portion, in order to increase retention and/or save material, and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claimed variations in relative dimensions do not patentably distinguish applicant's invention. Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments based on routine experimentation. Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable dimensions.
Regarding claim 5, Hirano teaches the first inner surface and the second inner surface being perpendicular to the bottom surface of the central portion of the body (see Figs. 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 6 Raabe discloses the proximal portion (left side) of the body having a length that is less than a length of the distal portion of the body (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8, Raabe discloses the distal portion (right side) of the body including a hole extending therethrough (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14, Raabe discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the second angle being greater than the first angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the second angle being greater than the first angle, in order to fit the desired environment and profile of the device. Absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor’s preference without thereby departing from the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Hirano teaches each of the two wire guides having a rectangular shape (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 25, Raabe discloses the distal portion of the body having an upper surface and a lower surface, each of the upper and lower surfaces being planar along (part of) the length the distal portion of the body.
Regarding claim 26, Raabe discloses the central portion having a top surface, the top surface being continuous, uninterrupted surface (Fig. 2B) configured to receive a distal end of the terminal screw pressed against the top surface (intended use).
Regarding claim 27, Diconne teaches each of the plurality of ribs (12) spaced apart from one another with flat portions (i.e. linear flat portions in between) of the bottom surface in between.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Hirano is substantially different from Raabe, i.e. that is nonanalogous art, please note that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Raabe and Hirano are in the field of clamped electrical connections. Hirano is also pertinent to keeping the wire terminal in the clamped area.
In response to Applicant's arguments that there’s no reason to add “wire guides” form Hirano, since the wire is already guided by the connector 108 (of Raabe), please note that Diconne shows that appropriate wire guides can be used with a connector (5).
Again, please note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, please note that the rejection does not purports that the dimensions are an arbitrary design choice, but rather that it would have been an obvious matter of design to form the central portion having a length greater than a length of the proximal portion and a length of the distal portion, in order to increase retention and/or save 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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached on (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights