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
The amendments filed on November 19th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 12th 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 7-8, 13, and 20 recites the limitation "wherein a length between a first end and a second end is …" which renders the claim indefinite since there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what object has a length between the first and second end. This length between a first and second end could be referring to the first arm, second arm, the central portion, or some other component. Based on the specifications its seems the “first end” is the first end of the spring member and the “second end” is the second end of the spring member (Paragraph 39). For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the limitation as “wherein a length between a first end and a second end of the spring member …. is less than 2 mm/ a distance of 1.95mm” for claims 1 and dependent claims 7-8 as well as “wherein a length between a first end and a second end of the device is less than 2mm” for claim 13, to bring the claims more in line with what is taught in the specifications.
Claims 2-12, and 14-19 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 13.
Claim 7 also recites the same limitation as claim 1, “wherein a length between a first end and a second end is than 2mm” which appears redundant and has the same indefiniteness issue.
Claim 13 is further indefinite for reciting a limitation “wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support” since there insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never recites a spring member before so it is unclear as to what spring member is being referred to here. For the purposes of examination, the examiner as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “wherein the device is devoid of lateral support…” to bring the claim more in line with what is taught in the specifications.
Claims 14-19 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 13.
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(s) 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 101165558 B1) in view of Lybrand et al. (US 10868377 B2).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, Kang et al. discloses a spring member forming an electrical contact, the spring member comprising (Connector 100 is a spring member that serves to electrically connect an antenna and a PCB as seen in figures 1-6 of Kang et al.):
a first arm comprising (Connector 100 comprises a first arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.):
a flared tip located at a distal end of the first arm, the first arm configured to contact an antenna applying a compressive force to the first arm (Contact portion 40 comprises an inclined portion 41 and thus serves as a flared tip at the end of the first arm that has a force applied upon it by a connecting part 150 of an antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
an embossment located at a distal end of the flared tip; the embossment configured as part of the contact of the flared tip to the antenna in response to the compression force (Contact portion can include an embossed portion, labeled 46/42a, on the end of the flared tip which is part of the contact to the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al );
wherein the first arm extends on a first plane (First arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30 extends in a first plane, Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a second arm,
wherein the second arm extends on a second plane offset from the first plane (Fixed portion 10 serves as a second arm which extends on a second plane offset form the first plane; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a central portion comprising:
a flexible transition portion integrally connecting the first arm to the second arm, the central portion configured to flexibly transition between a first state and a second state responsive to a compressive force applied to the first arm towards a direction of the second arm, the central portion acting in cooperation with the embossment to place the antenna in connection with a programmable circuit board (PCB) (Elastic portion 20 serves as a central portion and integrally connects the first and second arms 30 and 10 such that when the force of an antenna connecting portion 150 contacts the embossment 46/42a on the first arm and pushes it towards the second arm, a PCB 200 is placed in electrical connection with the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
wherein the spring member defines a substantially U-shaped short signal path between the first arm and the second arm (Connector 100 comprises a substantially U-shaped signal path between the first arm and the second arm as seen in figures 3-6 of Kang et al.) and wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm (First arm 30 can comprise a support portion 60, extending from support portion 50, that serve as support wings wherein support portion 50 is only connected to the first arm such that support wings extend only from the first arm and the second arm 10 does not comprise support wings that extend vertically form it; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm.
Although, Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose the length is less than 2mm. Lybrand et al. does discloses a length between the first end and a second end (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
373
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kang et al. does further disclose, wherein the second arm is configured to be fixedly connected to an electrical terminal by a fastener (Fixed plate 10 can be electrically connected to the PCB through soldering and PCB can also provide a fastening protrusion to go through hole 11; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kang et al. does disclose wherein the second arm is fixedly connected to the electrical terminal by solder (Fixed plate 10 can be electrically connected to the PCB through soldering and PCB; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second arm comprises: a solder pad
However, Lybrand et al. does disclose the second arm comprises: a solder pad (Portion 310 is connected to the PCB using solder pads 106 or 406; portion 310; Paragraph 24 and 29 with Figure 1 and 4 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. to have the second arm comprise a solder pad as taught by Lybrand et al. to help connect the PCB to the spring member when soldering (Paragraph 24 of Lybrand et al.)
Regarding Claim 5, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member.
However, Lybrand et al. does disclose a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member (Bulge portion 308 serves as a divider across the width of the spring contact and defines a connection portion 310 with a part of which may be used for a solder and bulge also prevents solder from wicking into the bend portions; Paragraph 25-28 and figure 1-3A of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. to have a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member as taught by Lybrand et al. to limit the amount of solder to the bend portion and impacting the spring member (Paragraph 26 of Lybrand et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 6, Kang et al. further discloses wherein an angular relationship between the first arm and the second arm decreases responsive to the compressive force applied to the first arm (The angler relationship between the first arm 30 and second arm 10 decreases as an compressive force is applied to the first arm through the contact portion 40; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm, and wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with no load applied to the first arm is approximately 1.2 mm.
Although, Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose the length is less than 2mm and height is approximately 1.2mm. Lybrand et al. does discloses a length between the first end and a second end (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand) and wherein a height between the first arm and second arm with no load applied to the first arm (126/314 shows the height between the arms which is nominally 1.7mm; Paragraph 27 and figure 3A of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a length that is less than 2mm and height that is approximately 1.2mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand).
Regarding Claim 8, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the length between the first end and the second end comprises a distance of 1.95 mm.
Although, Lybrand et al. fail to explicitly disclose a length that comprises a distance of 1.95 mm. Lybrand does disclose a length between the first end and the second end (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a length that is 1.95mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Kang et al. further discloses wherein a deflection distance between the first state and the second state is proportional to the compressive force (Deflection between a first position and a second position would depend on the force applied as seen in figure 5 of Kang et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the deflection distance is approximately 0.6 mm.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose a deflection distance that is approximately .6mm. Lybrand does disclose a deflection distance (Deflection distance can be between 0mm to .4mm; Paragraph 38 and figure 13 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a deflection distance that is approximately .6mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation would stem from improving the deflection range to enhance functionality and adaptability.
Regarding Claim 11, Kang et al. fails to disclose wherein the deflection distance between the first state and the second state is approximately 0.6 mm responsive to the compressive force being approximately 1.15 N.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose a deflection distance is approximately .6mm in response to a force being approximately 1.15N. Lybrand does disclose a deflection distance between the first and second state that is responsive to the compressive force (Deflection between two states of the spring member is between 0-.4mm and has a linear relationship with the force applied being from 0-1.2N as seen in figure 13 and paragraph 39 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a deflection distance that is approximately .6mm responsive to the compressive force being approximately 1.15N since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation would stem from improving the deflection range to enhance functionality and adaptability.
Regarding Claim 12, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the deflection distance is based on a yield stress of approximately 1110 mPa being applied to the central portion.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose a yield stress of approximately 1110 mPa being applied to the central portion. Lybrand et al. does disclose the deflection distance is based on a yield stress applied to the central portion (Von Mises Stress plot shows the stress, which can range from 0 to 2732mPA, applied on the different parts of the bend portion 306 and caused by the deflection force which correlates to the deflection distance and has a central portion to which stress is applied ; Paragraph 38 and figure 12 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have the deflection distance be based on a yield stress of approximately 1110 mPa being applied to the central portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation would stem from the fact that the force applied to the spring determines the amount of deflection needed (Paragraph 38 of Lybrand et al.) and so different forces can give different deflections.
Regarding Claim 13 as best understood, Kang et al. discloses a device comprising (Connector 100 is a spring member that serves to electrically connect an antenna and a PCB as seen in figures 1-6 of Kang et al.):
a first arm comprising (Connector 100 comprises a first arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.):
a flared tip located at a distal end of the first arm, the first arm configured to contact an antenna applying a compressive force to the first arm (Contact portion 40 comprises an inclined portion 41 and thus serves as a flared tip at the end of the first arm that has a force applied upon it by a connecting part 150 of an antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
an embossment located at a distal end of the flared tip; the embossment configured as part of the contact of the flared tip to the antenna in response to the compression force (Contact portion can include an embossed portion, labeled 46/42a, on the end of the flared tip which is part of the contact to the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al );
wherein the first arm extends on a first plane (First arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30 extends in a first plane, Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a second arm,
wherein the second arm extends on a second plane offset from the first plane (Fixed portion 10 serves as a second arm which extends on a second plane offset form the first plane; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a central portion comprising:
a flexible transition portion integrally connecting the first arm to the second arm, the central portion configured to flexibly transition between a first state and a second state responsive to a compressive force applied to the first arm towards a direction of the second arm, the central portion acting in cooperation with the embossment to place the antenna in connection with a programmable circuit board (PCB) (Elastic portion 20 serves as a central portion and integrally connects the first and second arms 30 and 10 such that when the force of an antenna connecting portion 150 contacts the embossment 46/42a on the first arm and pushes it towards the second arm, a PCB 200 is placed in electrical connection with the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
wherein the spring member defines a substantially U-shaped short signal path between the first arm and the second arm (Connector 100 comprises a substantially U-shaped signal path between the first arm and the second arm as seen in figures 3-6 of Kang et al.) and wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm (First arm 30 can comprise a support portion 60, extending from support portion 50, that serve as support wings wherein support portion 50 is only connected to the first arm such that support wings extend only from the first arm and the second arm 10 does not comprise support wings that extend vertically form it; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm.
Although, Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose the length is less than 2mm. Lybrand et al. does discloses a length between the first end and a second end (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 14, Kang et al. does disclose wherein the second arm is fixedly connected to the electrical terminal by solder (Fixed plate 10 can be electrically connected to the PCB through soldering and PCB; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second arm comprises: a solder pad
However, Lybrand et al. does disclose the second arm comprises: a solder pad (Portion 310 is connected to the PCB using solder pads 106 or 406; portion 310; Paragraph 24 and 29 with Figure 1 and 4 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. to have the second arm comprise a solder pad as taught by Lybrand et al. to help connect the PCB to the spring member when soldering (Paragraph 24 of Lybrand et al.)
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 15, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member.
However, Lybrand et al. does disclose a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member (Bulge portion 308 serves as a divider across the width of the spring contact and defines a connection portion 310 with a part of which may be used for a solder and bulge also prevents solder from wicking into the bend portions; Paragraph 25-28 and figure 1-3A of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. to have a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines a solder pad at the second arm, and the divider is configured to prevent solder applied to the solder pad from collecting at the central portion and affecting a tensioning performance of the spring member as taught by Lybrand et al. to limit the amount of solder to the bend portion and impacting the spring member (Paragraph 26 of Lybrand et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 16, Kang et al. further discloses wherein an angular relationship between the first arm and the second arm decreases responsive to the compressive force applied to the first arm (The angler relationship between the first arm 30 and second arm 10 decreases as an compressive force is applied to the first arm through the contact portion 40; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length between a first end and a second end of the device is approximately 1.95 mm, and wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with no load applied to the first arm is approximately 1.2 mm.
Although, Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose the length is approximately 1.9mm and height is approximately 1.2mm. Lybrand et al. does discloses a length between a first end and a second end of the device (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand et al.) and wherein a height between the first arm and second arm with no load applied to the first arm (126/314 shows the height between the arms which is nominally 1.7mm; Paragraph 27 and figure 3A of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a length between a first end and a second end of the device is approximately 1.95 mm, and wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with no load applied to the first arm is approximately 1.2 mm., since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Kang et al. further discloses wherein a deflection distance between the first state and the second state is proportional to the compressive force (Deflection between a first position and a second position would depend on the force applied as seen in figure 5 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with a compressive force applied to the first arm is approximately 0.6 mm.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with a compressive force applied to the first arm is approximately 0.6 mm. Lybrand et al. does disclose wherein a height between the first arm and the second arm with a compressive force applied to the first (Deflection distance can be between 0mm to .4mm and as such when the first arm is under a compression force the distance between the arms would vary form 1.7mm to 1.3mm; Paragraph 27-38 and figure 13 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. a height between the first arm and the second arm with a compressive force applied to the first arm is approximately 0.6 mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation would stem from improving the distance between arms such that the spring meets the needs for the application it is place in (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Kang et al. fails to disclose wherein the deflection distance between the first state and the second state is approximately 0.6 mm responsive to the compressive force being approximately 1.15 N.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose a deflection distance is approximately .6mm in response to a force being approximately 1.15N. Lybrand does disclose a deflection distance between the first and second state that is responsive to the compressive force (Deflection between two states of the spring member is between 0-.4mm and has a linear relationship with the force applied being from 0-1.2N as seen in figure 13 and paragraph 39 of Lybrand et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. with the teachings of Lybrand et al. to have a deflection distance that is approximately .6mm responsive to the compressive force being approximately 1.15N since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation would stem from improving the deflection range to enhance functionality and adaptability.
Claim(s) 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 101165558 B1) and Lybrand et al. (US 10868377 B2) in view of Samardzija et al. (US 20220140484 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kang et al. and Lybrand et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spring member forms an antenna signal loop between the antenna and the PCB responsive to the electrical contact being positioned therebetween.
However, Samardzija et al. does disclose wherein the spring member forms an antenna signal loop between the antenna and the PCB responsive to the electrical contact being positioned therebetween (Electrical contact 134, which is a spring clip with a flared tip, is used to connect the antenna feed leg 116 to the PCB 130 such that an electrical current can be supplied from the PCB to the antenna through the feed leg forming a signal loop between the antenna and the PCB when the leg applies pressure to the spring clip; Paragraph 59 and figure 8 of Samardzija et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. and Lybrand et al. to include the spring member forms an antenna signal loop between the antenna and the PCB responsive to the electrical contact being positioned therebetween as taught by Samardzija et al. to facilitate an electrical connection using the spring member. (Paragraph 59 of Samardzija et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image3.png
344
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20 as best understood, Kang et al. further discloses a system (Connector, antenna, and PCB form a system as seen in figures 1-6 of Kang et al.) comprising:
an antenna (Antenna 140 with antenna connecting piece 150; Paragraph 57-67 and figure 6 of Kang et al.);
an electrical circuit board (PCB 200; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.); and
an electrically conductive spring member located between the antenna and the electrical circuit board, the spring member comprising (Connector 100 serves as a spring member and is located between an antenna and a PCB; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.):
a first arm comprising (Connector 100 comprises a first arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.):
a flared tip located at a distal end of the first arm, the first arm configured to contact an antenna applying a compressive force to the first arm (Contact portion 40 comprises an inclined portion 41 and thus serves as a flared tip at the end of the first arm that has a force applied upon it by a connecting part 150 of an antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
an embossment located at a distal end of the flared tip; the embossment configured as part of the contact of the flared tip to the antenna in response to the compression force (Contact portion can include an embossed portion, labeled 46/42a, on the end of the flared tip which is part of the contact to the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al );
wherein the first arm extends on a first plane (First arm in the form of horizontally extending portion 30 extends in a first plane, Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a second arm,
wherein the second arm extends on a second plane offset from the first plane (Fixed portion 10 serves as a second arm which extends on a second plane offset form the first plane; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al);
a central portion comprising:
a flexible transition portion integrally connecting the first arm to the second arm, the central portion configured to flexibly transition between a first state and a second state responsive to a compressive force applied to the first arm towards a direction of the second arm, the central portion acting in cooperation with the embossment to place the antenna in connection with a programmable circuit board (PCB) (Elastic portion 20 serves as a central portion and integrally connects the first and second arms 30 and 10 such that when the force of an antenna connecting portion 150 contacts the embossment 46/42a on the first arm and pushes it towards the second arm, a PCB 200 is placed in electrical connection with the antenna; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al); and
wherein the spring member defines a substantially U-shaped short signal path between the first arm and the second arm (Connector 100 comprises a substantially U-shaped signal path between the first arm and the second arm as seen in figures 3-6 of Kang et al.).
wherein the second arm is configured to be fixedly connected to the electrical circuit board using solder(Fixed plate 10 can be electrically connected to the PCB through soldering and PCB; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.),
wherein a deflection distance between the first state and the second state is proportional to the compressive force applied thereto such that an angular relationship between the first arm and the second arm decreases responsive to the compressive force applied to the first arm (The angler relationship between the first arm 30 and second arm 10 decreases as an compressive force is applied to the first arm through the contact portion 40 wherein a deflection distance between a first state with no force and a second state with forcer would be proportional to the force applied; Paragraph 32-45 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.), and wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm (First arm 30 can comprise a support portion 60, extending from support portion 50, that serve as support wings wherein support portion 50 is only connected to the first arm such that support wings extend only from the first arm and the second arm 10 does not comprise support wings that extend vertically form it; Paragraph 32-45 and 57-67 as well as figure 3-6 of Kang et al.).
Kang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a solder pad, a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines the solder pad from the central portion; wherein the spring member defines a U-shaped short signal path between the antenna and the electrical circuit board; and the deflection distance being approximately 0.6 mm in response to the compressive force of approximately 1.15 N and wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm.
Although Lybrand et al. fails to explicitly disclose the deflection distance being approximately 0.6 mm in response to the compressive force of approximately 1.15 N and wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm. Lybrand et al. does disclose a solder pad (Portion 310 is connected to the PCB using solder pads 106 or 406; portion 310; Paragraph 24 and 29 with Figure 1 and 4 of Lybrand), a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines the solder pad from the central portion (Bulge portion 308 serves as a divider across the width of the spring contact and defines a connection portion 310 with a part of which may be used for a solder and bulge also prevents solder from wicking into the bend portions; Paragraph 25-28 and figure 1-3A of Lybrand); and the deflection distance in response to the compressive force (Deflection between two states of the spring member is between 0-.4mm and has a linear relationship with the force applied being from 0-1.2N as seen in figure 13 and paragraph 39 of Lybrand et al.) and a length between the first end and a second end (124/312 shows the length of the spring contact from one end to another end and is nominally 3mm; Paragraph 27 and Figure 3A of Lybrand).
Samardzija et al. further discloses wherein the spring member defines a U-shaped short signal path between the antenna and the electrical circuit board (Electrical contact 134, which is a spring clip with a flared tip, is used to connect the antenna feed leg 116 to the PCB 130 such that an electrical current can be supplied from the PCB to the antenna through the feed leg forming a signal loop, with a u-shaped short signal path between the antenna and the PCB when the leg applies pressure to the spring clip; Paragraph 59 and figure 8 of Samardzija et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. to have a solder pad, a divider, wherein the divider extends across a width of the spring member and defines the solder pad from the central portion;, the deflection distance being approximately 0.6 mm in response to the compressive force of approximately 1.15 N, and a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm as taught by Lybrand et al. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would stem from to help connect the PCB to the spring member when soldering (Paragraph 24 of Lybrand et al.) while limiting the amount of solder to the bend portion and impacting the spring member (Paragraph 26 of Lybrand et al.) as well improve the deflection range to enhance functionality and adaptability, and varying the dimensions of the spring such that is suits the needs of the application in which it is installed (Paragraph 27 of Lybrand). It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Kang et al. and Lybrand et al. to have wherein the spring member defines a U-shaped short signal path between the antenna and the electrical circuit board as taught by Samardzija et al. to facilitate an electrical connection using the spring member. (Paragraph 59 of Samardzija et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Response to Arguments
“Turning to the rejections based on the newly applied Kang reference, Applicant respectfully traverses. Claim 1 has been amended to add dimensional and structural limitations that distinguish over Kang. Specifically, the claim now recites "wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm, and wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm." Applicant respectfully submits that Kang fails to disclose these limitations.
First, Kang provides no dimensional specifications whatsoever for its contactor, and therefore cannot anticipate or render obvious a spring member with the claimed compact dimensions (< 2 mm) that are critical for space-constrained antenna applications. Second, Kang expressly teaches the opposite structure by requiring "wing portions" (60) that extend vertically from the support portion to cover lateral spaces of the contact portion. See Kang at [0012], [0032]; Figs. 3a-3b. Kang emphasizes these wing portions as essential to preventing deformation, preventing entanglement during plating, and improving worker safety. See Kang at [0013]-[0014], [0032]-[0033].
Additionally, the claimed spring member includes an embossment at the flared tip configured to contact the antenna in cooperation with the central portion-a feature absent from Kang. While Kang mentions an "embossing" (42a), this is merely a curved protrusion on the upper surface of the contact point that increases thickness for better contact. See Kang at [0031]. Applicant's embossment (145), by contrast, is specifically located at the distal end of the flared tip and acts in cooperation with the central portion to place the antenna in connection with the PCB, providing enhanced contact pressure distribution and signal transmission. The claimed combination of (1) compact dimensions under 2 mm, (2) an embossment at the flared tip cooperating with the central portion, (3) absence of lateral support wings, and (4) a U-shaped short signal path optimized for antenna applications represents a distinct design philosophy not taught or suggested by Kang. Indeed, Kang teaches away from the claimed structure by emphasizing that lateral support wings are necessary to prevent the very problems (deformation, entanglement, safety hazards) that Applicant's design avoids through alternative structural features.”
Applicant's arguments filed on December 05th 2025 in regards to claim 1, 13, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Kang and Lybrand et al. fail to teach the limitations "wherein a length between a first end and a second end is less than 2 mm, and wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm”.
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 20, the examiner notes that while Kang does not disclose specific dimensional limitations, Kang does disclose said clip is used to connect an antenna to a PCB inside a mobile phone (Paragraph 37 and 62 of Kang) which serves as an space-constrained antenna application. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a clip would naturally have to have a small size to accomplish this function with said size being in the millimeters. Furthermore, however, Lybrand et al. does disclose a clip with specific dimensional limitation in the millimeter range with motivation to change the size depending on the application in which the clip needs to be employed. It should also be noted that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Thus Kang in view of Lybrand et al. can be used to reject the limitation as recited above. Additionally, Kang also teaches a U-shaped short signal path due to said clip comprising a U-shape between the arms wherein said clips is used for an antenna application.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the spring member is devoid of lateral support wings extending vertically from the second arm that cover lateral spaces adjacent to the first arm”, the examiner notes that Kang does teach this. According to applicants claim and disclosure, a first arm is marked as the top arm 105 and the second arm is the bottom arm 110, so applicant claim recites that lateral support wing portions cannot extend vertically from the second arm 110. However Kang discloses a first arm 30 which serves as the top arm and a second arm 10 which serves as the bottom arm wherein support wings 60 extend from the first arm 30 and not from the second arm 10, thus meeting the claim limitation as it is currently precented. If the claim is meant to recite that support portions cannot extend form the first arm, then it needs to be amended to do so, however the currently presented claim limitation is met.
Regarding the “embossment” as recited in claims 1, 13, and 20, the examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing enhanced contact pressure distribution and signal transmission) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims and specifications only teach the embossment as being a member configured to contact the antenna in cooperation with the central portion. As noted by Kang and the applicant, the embossing 42a serves as an embossment that increases thickness for better contact wherein said embossment is located on the distal end and said contact is done to place an antenna in cooperation with the central portion. It is also noted that the applicant uses “configured to” language when describing the embossments purpose, with said language being broader in nature and only requiring the embossment to have the ability to do so which is taught by Kang. As such the embossing 42a does meet the claim requirements as presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
KR 101045484 B1 (SIN GUK SIK) further discloses a spring member used for electrical connection between an antenna and a PCB.
WO 2015030365 A1 (PARK, JIN WOO) further discloses a spring member used for electrical connection between an antenna and a PCB wherein the spring comprises a flared tip with an embossment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Dameon E Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845