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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/396,959 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the Copending’s claim 1 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 2, the Copending’s claim 2 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 3, the Copending’s claim 3 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 4, the Copending’s claim 4 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 5, the Copending’s claim 5 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 6, the Copending’s claim 6 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 7, the Copending’s claim 7 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 8, the Copending’s claim 8 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 9, the Copending’s claim 9 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 10, the Copending’s claim 10 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 11, the Copending’s claim 11 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 12, the Copending’s claim 12 disclose the same invention.
Regarding claim 13, the Copending’s claim 13 disclose the same invention.
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 rejections under this section 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Mills (US 5,291,376).
Regarding claim 1, Mills discloses an adapter (24) to couple a wire (not shown) to a solder joint (68), said adapter comprising a solder joint receiving hole (62); and a wire attachment terminal (bore 40 and 42).
Regarding claim 2, Mills discloses said solder joint receiving hole is operable to receive said solder joint.
Regarding claim 3, Mills discloses said solder joint is a pin or a peg.
Regarding claim 6, Mills discloses said solder joint is made of a material with good thermal and electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 7, Mills discloses said solder joint is made from copper, brass, bronze, silver, gold, aluminum, nickel, tin, tin alloy, lead or lead alloy.
Regarding claim 8, Mills discloses said wire attachment terminal is a threaded hole or a threaded cavity located within said adapter.
Regarding claim 13, Mills discloses said adapter is at least partly made of a material with good electrical conductivity.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bears (US 1,899,254).
Regarding claim 1, Bears discloses an adapter (24) to couple a wire (23) to a solder joint (29), said adapter comprising a solder joint receiving hole (29); and
a wire attachment terminal (25).
Regarding claim 12, Bears discloses said wire attachment terminal is operable to form a crimp upon crimping.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 5,291,376).
Regarding claim 4, Mills substantially disclosed except the shape of said solder joint is cylindrical, cuboid, or a prism shape, and wherein said prism is triangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, pentagrammic, or octagonal.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the solder joint to the shapes as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Mills substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the shape of said solder joint is a cone, a truncated cone, a triangular prism, or a pyramid shape, and wherein said pyramid shape is triangular, square, hexagonal, or octagonal.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the solder joint to the shapes as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 9-10, Mills substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the shape of said wire attachment terminal is tube-shaped or pipe-shaped, comprising a round, rectangular, square, or oval cross-section.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the solder joint to the shapes as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Mills et al. discloses wherein said wire attachment terminal comprises an air-escape hole (either bore 40 or 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2011. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday (7-4).
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, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TRUC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834