DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 1, 5, and 25-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons.
Newly submitted claims 1, 5, 25, 26, and 27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended (6/24/26) to claim the species of invention wherein:
“a distal end of the joint portion opposite the main body having a width in a direction orthogonal to the first direction that is less than or equal to a width of a proximal end of the joint portion defined adjacent the main body . . . .”
Original claim 6, now cancelled, claimed the species of invention wherein:
“a distal end of the joint portion opposite the main body having a width in a direction orthogonal to the plugging direction that is greater than a width of a proximal end of the joint portion defined adjacent the main body . . . .”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 25, 26, and 27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Regarding new claim 28, claim 28 is directed to a connector assembly, including a contact arranged in the housing, including that:
“a distal end of the joint portion opposite the main body having a width in a direction orthogonal to the first direction that is less than or equal to a width of a proximal end of the joint portion defined adjacent the main body . . . .”
Original claim 6, now cancelled, claimed the species of invention wherein:
“a distal end of the joint portion opposite the main body having a width in a direction orthogonal to the plugging direction that is greater than a width of a proximal end of the joint portion defined adjacent the main body . . . .”
Likewise, claim 21, as claimed in the amendment dated 2/11/26, claimed the species of invention wherein:
“an end of the joint portion defines a circular ring having an opening closed about its perimeter . . . .”
Original claim 6 and claim 21 dated 2/11/26 exclusively claim the species of invention distinct and independent from claimed invention of newly submitted claim 28.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 28 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the invention as claimed including that:
“the notch is defined by an arcuate surface of the joint portion having a constant radius of curvature” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not specify this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polakowski et al. US 12506285 (“Polakowski”).
Regarding claim 15, Polakowski discloses a connector assembly, comprising:
a substrate 18 including a conductive solder pad 26; and
a contact 22B arrangeable in contact housing, including:
a main body (labeled MB in annotated figure 4 below) adapted to be (i.e., capable of being) connected to a mating contact on a first end thereof;
and a joint portion (labeled JP below) protruding from a second end of the main body opposite the first end in a first direction (labeled D1),
the joint portion including a notch (labeled NTCH) formed into a distal end of the
joint portion opposite the main body, the joint portion adapted to be joined (i.e. capable of being joined) to the solder pad via solder (see col. 1, lines 20-25, col. 3, lines 60-65), a portion of a contour of the joint portion defined by the notch at least partially facing in a second direction (labeled D2) opposite the first direction (the notch is wider at the center than at the distal end entrance), the portion of the contour defined by the notch,
the joint portion is adapted to be joined (i.e. capable of being joined) to the solder such that the solder is surrounding the distal end of the joint portion and the notch,
the notch defining an opening in the joint portion open in the first direction,
a distal end of the joint portion opposite the main body having a width (labeled WDE below) in a direction orthogonal to a first direction of the contact that is less than or equal to a width of a proximal end (labeled WPE) of the joint portion defined adjacent the main body.
Polakowski does not disclose a contact housing. The examiner takes Official notice that it was well known in art to provide connectors with connector housings for housing the contacts of a connector. It would have been obvious to provide a connector housing to house the Polakowski contacts as was known in the art. The reason would have been to prevent shorting of the contacts and provide protection for the contacts as was known in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
1260
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 16 the portion of the contour inherently defines a normal vector extending outwardly from the contour and including a vector component extending in the second direction.
Per claim 17 the substrate is a printed circuit board.
Per claim 19, the joint portion is adapted to be joined (i.e. capable of being joined) to the solder such that the solder opposes at least a portion of the joint portion in the second direction (note that the claim does not positively claim solder as part of the assembly).
Per claim 24, the notch is defined by an arcuate surface (e.g., the section of the contour labeled ARC below) of the joint portion having a constant radius of curvature. Inherently, a sufficiently small section of the notch having a curvature can be selected such the radius of curvature of the selected section is effectively a constant radius of curvature.
PNG
media_image2.png
1146
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11450975 in view of Ohkita US 2003/0114028 (“Ohkita”). Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses a contact 1 for electrically connecting a first object to a second object, comprising:
a main body (labeled MB below) adapted to be connected (i.e., capable of being connected) to the first object in a plugging direction (labeled PD below);
a joint portion protruding from the main body and adapted to be joined to the second
object via solder,
a first portion of a contour of the joint portion at least partially facing in a first
direction (labeled D1) opposite a protruding direction of the joint portion, an end of the joint portion defines a circular ring having an opening closed about its perimeter is formed through the joint portion, a
central axis of the opening extending normal to the protruding direction, the joint portion having a width in a direction orthogonal to the plugging direction that is less than a width of the main body (labeled WMB).
Wang does not disclose a solder ball.
Ohkita discloses solder ball 7 located in hole 54 of the joint portion 52. It would have been obvious to provide a solder ball located in the hole of the Wang contact as taught in Ohkita. The reason would have been to facilitate soldering the Wang contact to an appropriate electrical conductor as taught Ohkita. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image3.png
844
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 22, the contour defined by the joint portion includes a first contour and a second contour, the first contour formed on an outwardly facing surface of the joint portion and the second contour formed on an inwardly facing surface of the joint portion, each of the first and second contours at least partially facing in the first direction.
Per claim 23, the first contour is defined on an outwardly facing surface of the ring, and the second contour is defined by the opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ROSS N GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler, can be reached at (571)272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights