DETAILED ACTION
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
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 16561327. Each of the limitations of the pending case either is identical in language to or is anticipated by corresponding limitations in the reference case. This is because the limitations which differ in the reference case lie entirely within the scope of the pending claim.
Pending claims
Reference claims
Claim 1: A receptacle connector assembly, comprising: a receptacle terminal having a connection portion defining an aperture configured to receive a plug terminal along a longitudinal axis; and a terminal housing defining an opening and a cavity in which the connection portion is disposed, wherein the connection portion is sized, shaped, and arranged within the cavity to be movable along a lateral axis arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.
Claim 2: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a terminal housing cover attached to the terminal housing and configured to enclose the connection portion.
Claim 6: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the receptacle terminal has an attachment portion configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire.
Claim 1: A lighting assembly, comprising: a receptacle terminal having a connection portion defining an aperture configured to receive a corresponding plug terminal along a longitudinal axis and an attachment portion configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire; a terminal housing defining a first oval-shaped opening and an oval- shaped cavity in which the connection portion is disposed, wherein the connection portion is sized, shaped, and arranged within the cavity to be movable along a lateral axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis; and a terminal housing cover defining a second oval-shaped opening attached to the terminal housing, thereby enclosing the connection portion.
Claim 3: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 2, wherein a hinge is disposed between the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover.
Claim 4: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 2, wherein the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover are integrally formed.
Claim 13: The lighting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover are integrally formed.
Claim 14: The lighting assembly according to claim 13, wherein a hinge is disposed between the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover.
Claim 7: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion is characterized as having a circular ring shape.
Claim 3: The lighting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion is characterized as having a circular ring shape.
Claim 8: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein an attachment portion of the receptacle terminal that is configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire is angularly offset relative to the connection portion.
Claim 4: The lighting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the attachment portion is angularly offset relative to the connection portion.
Claim 9: The receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion defines a contact spring configured to exert a contact force on the plug terminal.
Claim 10: The lighting assembly according to claim 9, wherein the connection portion defines a plurality of contact springs arranged about the aperture configured to exert a contact force on the post terminal.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAUGHERTY (US 20120003868 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DAUGHERTY (US 20120003868 A1) teaches a receptacle connector assembly (Figure 3), comprising:
a receptacle terminal having a connection portion defining an aperture configured to receive a plug terminal along a longitudinal axis (Figure 3 Paragraph 38, female connector 20a configured to receive male connector 22a along the z-axis); and
a terminal housing defining an opening and a cavity in which the connection portion is disposed (Figure 6 Paragraph 39, female connector 20a is receivable coupled in receptacle 16a),
wherein the connection portion is sized, shaped, and arranged within the cavity to be movable along a lateral axis arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis (Figure 4 Paragraph 54, arrangement 212 allows the coupled female connector 220a to floatily move in an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis direction within receptables 216).
Regarding claim 6, DAUGHERTY teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein
the receptacle terminal has an attachment portion configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire (Figure 1 Paragraph 50, female terminal is connected to the wire conductor 36).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machado (US 20030199209 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Machado (US 20030199209 A1) teaches a receptacle connector assembly (Figure 1, connector 10), comprising:
a receptacle terminal (Figure 2, insert 12) having a connection portion (socket portion 18) defining an aperture (Figure 2 Paragraph 21, socket portion 18 defines an opening socket 26) configured to receive a plug terminal (circular post 16a) along a longitudinal axis (Figure 1 Paragraph 20, circular post 16a is received along a central axis 32 through socket 26); and
a terminal housing (cover 14) defining an opening and a cavity in which the connection portion is disposed (Figure 1 Paragraph 26, cover 14 has an elongated interior cavity for housing insert 12 in which the socket 26 is positioned),
wherein the connection portion is sized, shaped, and arranged within the cavity to be movable along a lateral axis arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis (Paragraph 26, insert 12 which includes socket portion 18 is slidable within interior cavity 14a of the cover 14 in a direction perpendicular to that of the central axis; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the insert is movable along a lateral axis when not locked in place and thus satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein
the receptacle terminal has an attachment portion configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire (Figure 1 Paragraph 24, securement portion 20 attaches the socket portion 18 to a cable 11 as well as a conductor 13 of said cable 11).
Regarding claim 7, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein
the connection portion is characterized as having a circular ring shape (Figure 2 Paragraphs 20-21, circular female socket 26 for engaging the circular post 16a of a circular male connector).
Regarding claim 8, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein
an attachment portion of the receptacle terminal that is configured to attach the receptacle terminal to a wire is angularly offset relative to the connection portion (Figure 1 Paragraph 21, conductor 13 is at an offset angle relative to the socket 26; Paragraph 31, cable 11 extend at a particular angle relative to the axis of the socket; Paragraph 8, Paragraph 29, securement portion 20 extends at an angle relative to the socket portion 18).
Regarding claim 9, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein
the connection portion defines a contact spring configured to exert a contact force on the plug terminal (Paragraph 22, resilient contacts 28 press radially inwardly against the post 16a of the male connector 16 with sufficient pressure such as to maintain electrical communication therebetween).
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machado (US 20030199209 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shotey (US 7598452 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1.
Machado fails to teach:
a terminal housing cover attached to the terminal housing and configured to enclose the connection portion.
Shotey (US 7598452 B1) teaches in-use outlet cover, wherein:
a terminal housing cover attached to the terminal housing and configured to enclose the connection portion (Figure 2 Column 4 Lines 4-15, a lid 12 closes over the base 10 which houses the electrical device 20).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Machado with Shotey and have a lid enclose the base. This would have been done to protect the outlet (Maltby Column 6 Lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 3, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 2.
Maltby further teaches:
a hinge is disposed between the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover (Figure 34 Column 13 Lines 30-45, a living hinge is attached to and between the base and the lid).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 2.
Maltby further teaches:
the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover are integrally formed (Column 5 Lines 8-9, living hinge 54 is formed integrally with lid 52 and the base 50).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having the terminal housing and terminal housing cover be integrally formed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 5, Machado teaches the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 4.
Maltby further teaches:
a living hinge is disposed between the terminal housing and the terminal housing cover (Figures 7-8 Column 4 Line 66 – Column 5 Line 17, living hinge is disposed between the lid 52 and the base 50).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straten (US 20150055363 A1) in view of Machado (US 20030199209 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Van Straten (US 20150055363 A1) teaches an electrical assembly, comprising:
a substrate formed of a glass or polymeric material (Paragraph 26, lens 16 over a lamp 16 or light 52; Paragraph 28 lens made of glass, plastic, or other suitably optically transmissible material);
a heating circuit disposed on a surface of the substrate (Paragraph 26, lens 16 has a heating wire 14 embedded therein for heating lens 16 during inclement weather); and
the plug terminal connected to the heating circuit (Paragraph 37, plugs for the heater).
Van Straten fails to teach:
the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1;
Machado (US 20030199209 A1) teaches a connector terminal with resilient contacts, comprising:
the receptacle connector assembly according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Straten with Machado and have the connector terminal according to claim 1. This would have been done to allow for an easier and simpler method (Machado Paragraph 6) of forming an electrical connection to a defroster device of an automotive vehicle (Machado Paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 13, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 10, wherein
the heating circuit comprises a plurality of radial elements extending from a central portion of the substrate (Figure 3, heating wire comprising a plurality of radially extending portions extending from a central portion of the lens 16).
The Office further notes that different wire patterns for headlamps which comprise both concentric elements and radial elements extending from central portion of the lens is well known in the art as evidenced by Marley (US 20130114279 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 13, wherein
the heating circuit comprises a plurality of concentric elements interconnected to the plurality of radial elements (Figure 3, heating wire comprising a plurality of concentric elements interconnected to the plurality of radially extending portions).
The Office further notes that different wire patterns for headlamps which comprise both concentric elements and radial elements extending from central portion of the lens is well known in the art as evidenced by Marley (US 20130114279 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 10.
Machado further teaches:
the plug terminal is soldered to the heating circuit (Paragraph 20, male connector 16 has a base 16b that is soldered to a metallic contact 15a; Paragraph 20, contact 15a is in electrical communication with an electronic device formed on or within the glass such as a window defroster).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 10.
The Office further notes that having a plug for conventionally connecting a heating element to a power source of a vehicle light defroster is well known in the art as evidenced by Meirndorf (US 6563086 B1).
The Office further notes that having a plug be soldered to a heating circuit of a vehicle window is well known in the art as evidenced by Dixon (US 20120199569 A1).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straten (US 20150055363 A1) in view of Machado (US 20030199209 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of ROW (US 20180250491 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 10.
Van Straten as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the plug terminal has a cylindrical body and a rounded tip.
ROW (US 20180250491 A1) teaches an electrical heater directed toward humidification and fluid warming (Paragraph 85, film comprising the heater element circuit of printed conductive ink layer), wherein:
the plug terminal has a cylindrical body and a rounded tip (Paragraph 87, the electrical wire 62 fastened to the conductive ink on the film is fastened by means of a bullet connector; bullets connectors are in the shape of a bullet, or in other words have a cylindrical body and rounded tip).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Straten with ROW and have the plug terminal be in a bullet shape. This would have been done due to obvious engineering choice, as such shaped connectors are well known in the art, and thus would be used for their standardized and predictable results.
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having a plug terminal have a cylindrical body and a rounded tip is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
Regarding claim 12, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 11.
Machado further teaches:
the connection portion defines a plurality of contact springs arranged about the aperture that are configured to exert a contact force on the plug terminal (Paragraph 22, resilient contacts 28 press radially inwardly against the post 16a of the male connector 16 with sufficient pressure such as to maintain electrical communication therebetween).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 10.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straten (US 20150055363 A1) in view of Machado (US 20030199209 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Snugovsky (US 20150258636 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 15.
Machado further teaches:
the plug terminal is attached to connection pads of the heating circuit (Paragraph 20, male connector 16 has a base 16b that is soldered to a metallic contact 15a; Paragraph 20, contact 15a is in electrical communication with an electronic device formed on or within the glass such as a window defroster).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 10.
While Van Straten modified with Machado fails to teach that the soldering is performed using a low temperature solder, Snugovsky (US 20150258636 A1) teaches of use of a low temperature solder which is compatible with heat sensitive parts including electrical components (Snugovsky Paragraphs 62-63). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Straten with Snugovsky and have the soldering be done with low temperature solder. This would have been done to reduce overheating during the solder processing steps (Snugovsky Paragraph 62).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straten (US 20150055363 A1) in view of Machado (US 20030199209 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WERNER (US 20180083339 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Van Straten as modified teaches the electrical assembly according to claim 10.
While Van Straten modified with Machado fails to explicitly teach that the “the plug terminal is attached to the heating circuit by … adhering the plug terminal to the heating circuit with an electrically conductive adhesive”, WERNER (US 20180083339 A1) teaches a pane with electrical connection element with a heating conductor structure printed on the substrate, wherein a connection between the connecting element and cable can be done by either soldering, welding, or via an electrically conductive adhesive (WERNER Paragraph 20). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Straten with WERNER and have plug terminal be attached to the heating circuit by an electrically conductive adhesive. This would have been done as soldering, welding, and use of an electrically conductive adhesive are known in the art to be substitutable methods of joining electrical components of a heating element together, wherein the use of an electrically conductive adhesive would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights