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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/28/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (2017/0033507) in view of Tan (CN101694912A).
With regard to claim 18, Tsai teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “An electrical connector 1, comprising: a housing 10; and a stamped and bent part 15 inserted into the housing 10, the stamped and bent part 15 has a plate-shaped section 151 and a pin section 155 projecting from the plate-shaped section 151… the pin section 155 protrudes through a wall (right wall of 10 perpendicular to the extension direction of 151 in figure 8) of the housing 10, a side of the wall facing the plate-shaped section 151 and an opposite side of the wall facing a part of the pin section 155 protruding from the wall, the bending section (bent portion at the top of 155 in figure 8) is on the opposite side of the wall”.
Tsai does not teach: “the stamped and bent part has a main grain direction, the pin section has a bending section at which the pin section is bent about a bending axis, the bending axis is perpendicular to the main grain direction”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Tan teaches, as shown in figures 1-3: “the stamped and bent part 1 has a main grain direction A, the pin section 11 has a bending section (between 10 and 11 in figure 2) at which the pin section 11 is bent about a bending axis (axis perpendicular to figure 2 at the point in the middle of the bending section around which the bending section bends in figure 2), the bending axis is perpendicular to the main grain direction A”. 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 Tan with the invention of Tsai in order to improve function and service life of the stamped and bent part (Tan, translation, paragraph 22).
With regard to claim 20, Tsai as modified by Tan teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Tsai also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the part of the pin section 155 protruding through the housing 10 forms a contact section and is accessible outside the housing 10”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “each of the plate-shaped section and the pin section have a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface respectively along a thickness direction, the first surface of the plate- shaped section and the first surface of the pin section are in a same plane” when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore allowable.
Claims 2-15 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore also allowable.
With regard to claim 16, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “each of the plate-shaped section and the pin section have a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface respectively along a thickness direction, the first surface of the plate-shaped section and the first surface of the pin section are in a same plane” when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 16. Claim 16 is therefore allowable.
Claim 17 includes all the limitations of claim 16 and is therefore also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 18, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not anticipate or render obvious the limitation “a side of the wall faces the plate-shaped section and an opposite side of the wall faces a part of the pin section protruding from the wall, the bending section is on the opposite side of the wall”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the language of the claim is broad enough that Tsai anticipates this limitation (see labeled figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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
Prosecution Insights