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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). 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). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.” In this case, the claim recites relative width of the contact at various locations, and that is clearly shown by the reference.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 1 and claim 11 under USC 102(a)(1)(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Qiao et al. [US 20170085042 A1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu [US 20110104914 A1].
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu discloses a contact (21, Fig 3), comprising: a forward portion (211) defining a first width as measured along a Y-axis (see annotated Figure 3); a first angled portion defining a second width (see annotated Figure 3) as measured along the Y-axis; a securement portion (212) defining a third width (see annotated Figure 3) as measured along the Y-axis; a second angled portion defining a fourth width (see annotated Figure 3) as measured along the Y-axis; and a rear portion (213) defining a fifth width (see annotated Figure 3) as measured along the Y-axis, the forward portion (211), the first angled portion, the securement portion (212), the second angled portion and the rear portion (213) being arranged sequentially as measured along an X-axis (see annotated Figure 3); wherein each of the second width and the fourth width is less than each of the first width and the third width.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu discloses all the limitations of claim 5, Zhu further discloses at least a portion of the securement portion (212) is higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than is at least a portion of the forward portion (211).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu discloses all the limitations of claim 5, Zhu further discloses at least a portion of the securement portion (212) is higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than is at least a portion of the rear portion (213).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu discloses all the limitations of claim 5, Zhu further discloses at least a portion of the securement portion (212) is higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than is at least a portion of the first angled portion
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu discloses all the limitations of claim 5, Zhu further discloses the securement portion (212) is adapted to be secured to a base (10, via retaining slot 142).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 9 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu [US 20110104914 A1] in view of Qiao et al. [US 20170085042 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu discloses a connector assembly (see Figures 1-2), comprising: a base (10, Fig 3) extending along a Y-axis (see annotated Fig 2); a channel (143) extending through the base along an X-axis (see annotated Fig 2); and a contact (21) disposed at least partially within the channel (143, connecting portion 214 received in the channel 143), the contact (21) defining a securement portion (212) and at least one additional portion (211 and 213), the securement portion (212) securing to the base (10) at another channel (142) along the Z axis, the channel (142) opening at two opposite sides of the Z-axis and comprising a channel engagement feature (the retaining portion 212 is retained in the retaining slot); wherein, when the securement portion (212) is at least partially disposed within the channel (142) and secured to the base (10) at the channel (142), the additional portion (211 and 213) is disposed lower than the securement portion (212) as measured along the Z-axis (see annotated Fig 2). Zhu does not explicitly disclose the securement portion and the additional portion being defined at different points along the contact as measured along the X-axis, and the channel receiving the securement portion, the channel opening at two opposite sides of the base spaced apart along the X-axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
602
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Qiao discloses a contact member (780) including a securement portion (782, see annotated Figure 7) and the additional portion (see annotated Figure 7) being defined at different points along the contact (780) as measured along the X-axis, a channel (see annotated Figure 7) receiving the securement portion (782), the channel extending through the base along an X-axis, the channel opening at two opposite sides (Fig 7 is a partially-exploded rear perspective cross-section of the base and Fig 4 is front perspective of the base showing the two openings of the channel) of the base spaced apart along the X-axis.
PNG
media_image3.png
547
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu as suggested by Qiao to provide the securement portion and the additional portion being defined at different points along the contact as measured along the X-axis, and the channel receiving the securement portion, the channel opening at two opposite sides of the base spaced apart along the X-axis. Zhu secures the contact (21) at channel (142) extending through the Z-axis instead of the channel (143) holding the connecting portion (214) extending through the X-axis while Qiao uses a channel extending through the X-axis to secure the securement portion (782) of the contact. The particular placement of the mounting of the contact and the channel would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as Qiao and Zhu both show different configurations/placements to mount the contact to the base of the connector.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Zhu further discloses the additional portion (211,213) is disposed forward of the securement portion (212) as measured along the X-axis.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Zhu further discloses the additional portion (211,213) is disposed rearward of the securement portion (212) as measured along the X-axis.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Zhu further discloses the additional portion (211,213) is disposed forward of the securement portion (212) as measured along the X-axis, and the contact (21) further defines a rear portion (213) defined at a different point along the contact (21) than the securement portion (212) as measured along the X-axis, and when the securement portion (212) is at least partially disposed within the channel (142) and secured to the base (10) at the channel (142). Zhu does not explicitly disclose the rear portion is disposed lower than the securement portion as measured along the Z-axis.
However, Qiao further discloses a rear portion (784) is disposed lower than the securement portion (782) as measured along the Z-axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu as suggested by Qiao to provide the rear portion is disposed lower than the securement portion as measured along the Z-axis. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the configuration of the connector and where the contact is being mounted.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu discloses all the limitations of claim 5, Zhu does not explicitly disclose at least a portion of the securement portion is higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than is at least a portion of the second angled portion.
However, Qiao further discloses at least a portion of the securement portion (782) is higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than is at least a portion of the second angled portion (see annotated Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
361
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu as suggested by Qiao to provide at least a portion of the securement portion higher, as measured along a Z-axis, than at least a portion of the second angled portion. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the configuration of the connector and where the contact is being mounted.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhu discloses a connector assembly (Fig 1-2), comprising: a base (10, Fig 3) extending along a Y-axis (see annotated Fig 2); a channel (143) extending through the base along an X-axis (see annotated Fig 2); and a contact (21) disposed at least partially within the channel (143, extension portion 214 received in the channel 143), the first contact (21) defining a securement portion (212) having an engagement portion (212) and an extension portion (214), the engagement portion (212) being disposed forward of the extension portion (214) along the X-axis, and the engagement portion (212) securing to the base at another channel (142) along the Z-axis; and a second contact (22, Fig 3) defining a second contact rear portion (223), at least a portion of the second contact (22) rear portion (223) being disposed below, as measured along a Z-axis (see annotated Fig 2 and Figure 5), the extension portion (214) at a location P (see annotated Figure 5), the second contact (22) rear portion (223) defining a width as measured along a Y-axis at the location P, wherein a distance (D, see annotated Fig 5) between the second contact (22) rear portion (223) and the extension portion (214) at the location P, as measured along the Z axis (see annotated Figure 5), is at least as great as the width of the second contact (22) rear portion (223) as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. Zhu does not explicitly disclose the securement portion and the additional portion being defined at different points along the contact as measured along the X-axis, and the channel receiving the securement portion, the channel opening at two opposite sides of the base spaced apart along the X-axis.
PNG
media_image5.png
533
773
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Qiao discloses a contact member (780) including a securement portion (782, see annotated Figure 7) and the additional portion (see annotated Figure 7) being defined at different points along the contact (780) as measured along the X-axis, a channel (see annotated Figure 7) receiving the securement portion (782), the channel extending through the base along an X-axis, the channel opening at two opposite sides (Fig 7 is a partially-exploded rear perspective cross-section of the base and Fig 4 is front perspective of the base showing the two openings of the channel) of the base spaced apart along the X-axis.
PNG
media_image3.png
547
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu as suggested by Qiao to provide the securement portion and the additional portion being defined at different points along the contact as measured along the X-axis, and the channel receiving the securement portion, the channel opening at two opposite sides of the base spaced apart along the X-axis. Zhu secures the contact (21) at channel (142) extending through the Z-axis instead of the channel (143) holding the connecting portion (214) extending through the X-axis while Qiao uses a channel extending through the X-axis to secure the securement portion (782) of the contact. The particular placement of the mounting of the contact and the channel would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as Qiao and Zhu both show different configurations/placements to mount the contact to the base of the connector.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 150% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 150% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 200% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 200% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 250% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 250% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15 Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 300% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 300% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 350% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 350% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu and Qiao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Zhu and Qiao discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D being at least as great as 400% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the distance D being at least as great as 400% of the width of the second rear portion as measured along the Y-axis at the location P, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834