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 .
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Harz (4,362,350).
With regard to claim 1, von Harz teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “A grounding device 58, comprising: a substantially plate-shaped base body 73 made of an electrically conductive material, wherein the base body 73 has at least one passage 76 for a contact 104; and at least one contact element 102 having a contact surface (portion of 102 contacting 14 in figure 8) extending outwards in a radial direction from the base body”.
von Harz does not specifically show “wherein the at least one contact element and the base body lie in a common plane”. However, von Harz clearly shows that the contact elements 102 are bent from the base body 73 and that the contact elements are resiliently attached to the base body (column 6 lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contact elements would be in the same plane as the base body at the very least after they are cut out but before they are bent from the base body and that the contact elements could be bent to extend in the same plane as the base body in order to provide grounding to a structure that is sized to accommodate a grounding device with the contact elements coplanar with the base body. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 2, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 1”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least one contact element 102 is resilient in the radial direction”.
With regard to claim 3, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 1”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein at least two contact elements 102 are formed in a peripheral direction of the base body 73”.
With regard to claim 4, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 1”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein at least two passages 76 are formed”.
With regard to claim 5, von Harz teaches: “A grounding unit having a grounding device according to claim 1”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “further comprising at least one contact 104 arranged in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting and/or integrally bonded manner in and/or on the at least one passage 76”.
With regard to claim 6, von Harz teaches: “The grounding unit according to claim 5”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 6 lines 35-62: “wherein the at least one contact 104 is a protective earth (PE) contact”.
With regard to claim 8, von Harz teaches: “The grounding unit according to claim 5”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least one contact 104 comprises two parts, a first part 106 that is connectable to a second part 108 in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting and/or integrally bonded manner”.
With regard to claim 9, von Harz teaches: “…a grounding unit according to claim 5”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “A contact insert (16 and portions held therein in figure 4) having… further comprising: a first insulating body 18; and a second insulating body 20, wherein the grounding device 58 is received between the first insulating body 18 and the second insulating body 20, and wherein the contact surface of the at least one contact element 102 projects freely”.
With regard to claim 10, von Harz teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 9”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the first insulating body 18 and the second insulating body 20 have connecting elements (portions of 83 holding 18 and 20 in 10 in figure 1) configured to have a form-fitting and/or force-fitting connection”.
With regard to claim 11, von Harz teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 10”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the connecting elements 85 are configured to receive a signal and/or power contact (column 1 lines 38-49 teaches the contacts can be carrying signals)”.
With regard to claim 12, von Harz teaches: “An electrical plug connector having a contact insert according to claim 9”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “further comprising an electrically conductive housing 14, wherein the electrically conductive housing 14 surrounds the contact insert at least in part, and wherein the contact surface of the at least one contact element 102 of the contact insert is in electrical contact with the electrically conductive housing 14”.
With regard to claim 13, von Harz teaches: “The electrical plug connector according to claim 12”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the electrically conductive housing 14 is configured as a locking device or as a coupling sleeve”.
With regard to claim 14, von Harz teaches: “A method for producing a contact insert according to claim 9”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “comprising: introducing the first insulating body 18 into a tool holder 14; arranging the grounding device in a correct position in accordance with its pin configuration, on or in front of the first insulating body 18; arranging the second insulating body 20 on or in front of the grounding device; and pressing the first insulating body 18, the grounding device 58, and the second insulating body 20 together”.
With regard to claim 15, von Harz teaches: “The method according to claim 14”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “further comprising: connecting the at least one contact 104 to the grounding device 58 before pressing the first insulating body 18, the grounding device 58, and the second insulating body 20 together, and/or connecting the at least one contact 104 to the grounding device 58 after pressing the first insulating body 18, the grounding device 58, and the second insulating body 20 together”.
With regard to claim 16, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 1”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the grounding device 58 is for a contact insert (16 and portions held therein in figure 4), and the contact 104 is a contact pin”.
With regard to claim 17, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 2”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least one contact element 102 has a spring arm having a free end, and/or has a clamp-shaped spring arm”.
With regard to claim 18, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 3”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least two contact elements 102 are formed symmetrically in the peripheral direction of the base body 73”.
With regard to claim 19, von Harz teaches: “The grounding device according to claim 4”, as shown above.
von Harz also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least two passages 76 include a central passage (central 76 at the bottom of 73 in figure 2) arranged in a center of the base body 73 and at least three further passages arranged radially outside the central passage”.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harz (4,362,350) in view of Kumar et al. (2016/0308289).
With regard to claim 7, von Harz teaches: “The grounding unit according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Von Harz does not teach: “wherein the at least one contact has a knurling for generating a press fit with the grounding device”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kumar teaches, as shown in figure 3: “wherein the at least one contact 60 has a knurling (formed on 60 in figure 3) for generating a press fit with the grounding device 66”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kumar with the invention of von Harz in order to enable the base plate to hold the contacts (Kumar, paragraph 51).
With regard to claim 20, von Harz teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 10”, as shown above.
von Harz does not teach: “wherein the connecting elements include at least one contact dome and at least one contact dome receptacle that are complementary to one another”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kumar teaches, as shown in figure 2: “wherein the connecting elements 601 and 64 include at least one contact dome 601 and at least one contact dome receptacle 64 that are complementary to one another”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kumar with the invention of von Harz in order to hold the housings together (Kumar, paragraph 84).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that von Harz does not teach “a base body made of an electrically conductive material and at least one contact element having a contact surface extending outwards in a radial direction from the base body, wherein the at least one contact element and the base body lie in a common plane”. However, the contact elements of von Harz are capable of being bent out of and into the plane of the base body, so this limitation is an obvious modification of von Harz, as shown above.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831