DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Per claim 1, “the intermediate portion includes a plurality of corrugations, each corrugation having alternating raised regions and lowered regions.”
As shown in the figures each corrugation only has either 1 raised region or 1 lowered region. As shown, each corrugation does not have both plural raised and lowered regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to for not being black and white and using solid black lines as required by 37 CFR 1.84.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
1034
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Correction is required in response to this Office action and corrections may not be held in abeyance. Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.185(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set (or extended) period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reedy US 12294171. Per claim 1, Reedy discloses an electrical terminal 100 comprising:
a receptacle portion 102 formed from an electrically conductive material and including at least one engagement arm having a support surface (at lead line 102 in figure 2) that defines a receptacle space; and
at least one spring portion 114’ (col. 5, line 35, elastic deformation means that the protrusion is a “spring”) supported on the support surface of the at least one engagement arm of the receptacle portion and formed from an electrically conductive material,
the at least one spring portion including a first end portion (labeled EP1 in annotated figure 4 below), a second end portion (labeled EP2), and an intermediate portion (labeled IP) extending between the first end portion and the second end portion,
wherein the intermediate portion includes a plurality of corrugations 120, each corrugation having alternating raised regions (labeled RP) and lowered regions (labeled LP) in a first direction extending between the first end portion and the second end portions portion, and wherein the plurality of corrugations are arranged such that each raised region and lowered region of the plurality of corrugations alternate through at least a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
1310
1080
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3, the support surface of the at least one engagement arm is generally planar in shape.
Per claim 10, the at least one engagement arm comprises a first engagement arm and a second engagement arm spaced from the first engagement arm.
Per claim 11, the receptacle portion is formed from a single piece of material that is bent to define the first engagement arm and the second engagement arm.
Per claim 12, Reedy discloses an electrical terminal comprising (see claim 1 for identification of claimed elements):
a receptacle portion comprising an engagement arm defining a receptacle space;
a spring portion supported on a support surface of the engagement arm; and
wherein the spring portion comprises an intermediate portion having a plurality of
corrugations, each corrugation comprising alternating raised regions and lowered regions between respective end portions of the corrugation, and wherein the plurality of corrugations is arranged such that raised regions of one corrugation are adjacent to lowered regions of an
adjacent corrugation.
Per claim 13, the support surface of the engagement arm is planar in shape.
Per claim 14, each corrugation comprises one or more first contact points and one or more second contact points, and wherein the plurality of corrugations is arranged such that the first contact points and the second contact points alternate throughout the length and the width of the spring portion.
Per claim 17, Reedy discloses an electrical terminal comprising (see claim 1 for identification of claimed elements):
a receptacle portion comprising a first engagement arm and a second engagement arm defining a receptacle space;
a spring portion supported on a support surface of the first engagement arm; and wherein the spring portion comprises an intermediate portion having a plurality of corrugations, each corrugation comprising one or more first contact points and one or more second contact points, the plurality of corrugations is arranged such that the first contact points and the second contact points alternate throughout the length and the width of the spring
portion.
Per claim 18, the one or more first contact points face toward the support surface of the first engagement arm and the one or more second contact points face toward a support surface of the second engagement arm.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reedy.
Regarding claim 5, Reedy discloses that at least one engagement arm comprises a first engagement arm and a second engagement arm having respective support surfaces that define the receptacle space, and wherein the at least one spring portion comprises a first spring portion 114’ and a second spring portion 112, the first spring portion and the second spring portion are respectively supported on the first engagement arm and the second engagement arm of the receptacle portion. Reedy does not show the form of the inward facing spring elements of spring 112. It would have been obvious to form the inward facing spring elements of spring 112 facing spring 114’ to have the same structure as the spring 114’, including corrugated strips 120. Note that the material of the spring 112 would remain as stainless steel. The reason would have been to provide the normal connection force against mating inserted terminal (col. 5, lines 44-50).
As modified per claim 6, each of the first spring portion and the second spring portion includes a first end portion, a second end portion, and an intermediate portion extending between the first end portion and the second end portion, and wherein each the intermediate portion includes a plurality of corrugations, each corrugation having alternating raised and lowered regions between the first and second end portions.
Per claim 7 each of the support surfaces of the engagement arms is planar in shape.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy in view of Zhang et al. US 12107359 (“Zhang”). Reedy does not mount the springs with protrusions and openings. Zhang mounts springs 40 by protrusions 15 interference fit into holes 401. It would have been obvious to mount the Reedy springs (114’, 112) using well known protrusions and holes on the support surfaces and springs as taught in Zhang. The reason would have been to simplify mounting of the springs. 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).
Claims 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinsey, Jr. et al. US 11139600 (“Kinsey”) in view of Reedy. Regarding claim 12, Kinsey discloses an electrical terminal comprising :
a receptacle portion 10 comprising an engagement arm defining a receptacle space;
a spring portion 50 supported on a support surface of the engagement arm; and
wherein the spring portion comprises an intermediate portion (see figure 3) having a plurality of corrugations, each corrugation comprising alternating raised regions and lowered regions between respective end portions of the corrugation.
To the extent that arguably Kinsey does not show that the plurality of corrugations is arranged such that raised regions of one corrugation are adjacent to lowered regions of an
adjacent corrugation (see Kinsey figure 7), Reedy discloses such a configuration on spring 114’. It would have been obvious to replace the pattern of raised and lowered regions taught in Kinsey with the pattern of raised and lowered regions as taught in Reedy on spring 114’. The reason would have been to increase the number of contact points on the spring. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Per claim 15, the Kinsey engagement arm is a hollow cylindrical arm and the support surface of the engagement arm is cylindrical in shape.
Per claim 16, as modified per claim 12, each corrugation comprises one or
more first contact points and one or more second contact points, and wherein the plurality of
corrugations is arranged such that the first contact points and the second contact points alternate throughout the axial length and the radial length of the spring portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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