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
Figure 7 is described as, “a section of a conventional positioning busbar,” and should therefore be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a busbar to be electrically connected to a mating terminal being integrally formed with resin by molding in the connector body.” It is unclear from the claim language whether it is the busbar or the mating terminal which is integrally formed with resin by molding in the connector body. As the mating terminal is recited as intended use for the claimed connector, the claim will be interpreted as, “a busbar to be electrically connected to a mating terminal, the busbar being integrally formed with resin by molding in the connector body.”
The term “near” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. That is, it is unclear how near a position should be to a tip of the busbar to meet the degree of “near.” For examination purposes, “a position near a tip,” will be interpreted as, “a position on a tip.”
Claim 8 recites, “the same width and depth.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “a same width and depth.”
Claim 9 recites, “in the form of.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “is formed as.”
Claim 9 recites, “the convex contact point portions are arranged side by side in a longitudinal direction of the busbar tip portion in the case of providing a plurality of the convex contact point portions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for, “the convex contact point portions,” and, “the case of providing.” For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as, “in a case of providing a plurality of convex contact point portions, the plurality of convex contact point portions are arranged side by side in a longitudinal direction on the busbar tip portion.”
Claim 11 recites, “the busbars are arranged side by side in a plane direction of the connector body in the case of providing a plurality of the busbars.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for, “the busbars,” and, “in the case of.” For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as, “in a case of providing a plurality of busbars, the plurality of busbars are arranged side by side in a plane direction on the connector body.”
Claims 9 and 11 each recite, “in the case of.” In each claim, it is unclear whether “the case” provides an optional alternative embodiment or as an essential configuration of the claimed connector. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as optionally providing the plurality of convex contact point portions or busbars respectively.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Nysten (US 5003673).
Regarding claim 1: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches a connector, comprising a connector body (i.e. 40 and 50), a busbar (i.e. 20) to be electrically connected to a mating terminal being integrally formed with resin by molding in the connector body (i.e. as in figure 4), the busbar including: a convex contact point (i.e. 22) portion formed by convexly bending a part of the busbar as a contact point with the mating terminal; and an engaging portion (i.e. portion at 21) formed on an inner surface of the convex contact point portion in such a manner as to be embedded in a body (i.e. 47) of the connector body.
Regarding claim 2: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein the engaging portion is formed on the busbar simultaneously with the convex contact point portion when the convex contact point portion is formed on the busbar.
It has been held that, “when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
That is, the process of forming the engaging portion and convex contact portion on the busbar simultaneously does not further limit the structure of the connector. As such, the connector of claim 2 is anticipated by Nysten.
Regarding claim 3: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein:
the convex contact point portion includes a recess (i.e. 25) formed by thinning a part of the busbar (i.e. busbar at 21 thinner than top of 22) on the inner surface, and the engaging portion is formed on at least a part of a peripheral edge of the recess (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 3, wherein: the recess is formed into a shape having an opening (i.e. bottom of 25) in the form of a long hole, the recess is provided with a pair of width direction opening edges (i.e. bottom edges of 21) extending in a width direction (i.e. left/right as they surround the base of 40) of the busbar and arranged to face each other and a pair of width cross direction opening edges (i.e. top edges of 21) extending in a direction (i.e. into/out of the page) intersecting the width direction opening edges and arranged to face each other, and the engaging portions are formed at least on the width direction opening edges.
Regarding claim 6: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein the convex contact point portion is arranged at a position near a tip of the busbar (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein: the busbar includes a busbar body portion (i.e. 24) at least partially embedded (i.e. 24 deforms 50 to partially embed) in the body and a busbar tip portion (i.e. 22 and 23 excluding 24) exposed from the body and shaped by being bent in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the busbar body portion, and the convex contact point portion and the engaging portion are provided on the busbar tip portion.
Regarding claim 8: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 7, wherein: the body includes a seat portion (i.e. 40) for placing the busbar tip portion, and the busbar tip portion is formed to have the same width and depth as the seat portion in a part to be placed on the seat portion (i.e. final state has 47 and 21 the same width and depth).
Regarding claim 10: Nysten (Figures 1-4) teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein the mating terminal includes a plate-like portion (i.e. as 20 is configured to contact) for contacting the busbar.
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 5, 9, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nysten.
Regarding claim 5: Nysten teaches the connector of claim 1, wherein a set (i.e. 60) including the convex contact point portion and the engaging portion is provided on the busbar.
but does not specifically teach wherein a plurality of sets each including a convex contact point portion and an engaging portion is provided on the busbar.
however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the connector taught by Nysten with a plurality of sets each including a convex contact point portion and an engaging portion because providing duplicates of the convex contact point and engaging portion does not provide unexpected results. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 9: Nysten teaches the connector of claim 7, but does not specifically teach wherein: the busbar tip portion is in the form of a rectangular plate, and the convex contact point portions are arranged side by side in a longitudinal direction of the busbar tip portion in the case of providing a plurality of the convex contact point portions.
however, the claimed rectangular shape does not impact the structure or function of the claimed connector beyond a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
That is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nysten to have the busbar tip portion formed as a rectangular plate as a matter of design choice for the claimed busbar and intended use mating terminal.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the connector taught by Nysten with a plurality of convex contact point portions because providing duplicates of the convex contact point portion does not provide unexpected results. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 11: Nysten teaches the connector of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the busbars are arranged side by side in a plane direction of the connector body in the case of providing a plurality of the busbars.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the connector taught by Nysten with a plurality of busbars because providing duplicates of the busbar on the connector body does not provide unexpected results. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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 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 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834