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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified claim groups have considerable overlapping subject matter, such that examination of all currently pending claims in a single application is appropriate. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s traversal amount to a general allegation that the identified claim groups have considerable overlapping subject matter without specifically pointing out how the language of all the claims can be examined in a single application. Further, the electrical terminal can be cleaned with a chemical etching process instead of a laser etching process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raybold et al. (US 11581676 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Raybold et al. discloses an electrical terminal assembly for an electrical connector assembly comprising:
a header 60;
a potting material (see annotated drawing below) disposed within a cavity 200 of the header 60; and
an electrical terminal 100 extending through the header 60 and the potting material, the electrical terminal 100 formed of metal and having a non-uniform outer surface (see fig. 2) including at least one engagement feature 132, 134 (see annotated drawing below) for adhering to the header 60 and the potting material (see fig. 4).
The recitation that the “electrical connector assembly is a vehicle electrical connector assembly” has not been given significant patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
In regard to claim 2, Raybold et al. discloses the engagement feature comprises a plurality of engagement features.
In regard to claim 4, Raybold et al. discloses the plurality of engagement features are non-uniformly shaped.
In regard to claim 5, Raybold et al. discloses the plurality of engagement features comprises a first set of engagement features (see annotated drawing below), and a second set of engagement features 132, 134.
In regard to claim 6, Raybold et al. discloses the first set of engagement features are positioned in direct engagement with the header 60 and the second set of engagement features 132, 134 are positioned in direct engagement with the potting material.
In regard to claim 7, Raybold et al. discloses the first set of engagement features and the second set of engagement features are separated by a portion of the electrical terminal without engagement features (see fig. 4).
In regard to claim 10, the recitation that “electrical terminal assembly is disposed in a vehicle electrical system” has not been given a significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 11, the recitation that “electrical terminal assembly is disposed in a vehicle electrical steering system” has not been given a significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 13, Raybold et al. discloses an electrical terminal 100 extending through a component 60 of a connector 1, wherein the electrical terminal 100 comprises:
a cylindrical body; and a plurality of engagement features 132, 134 protruding from the cylindrical body and in direct contact with a surrounding portion (see annotated drawing below) of the component, wherein the plurality of engagement features comprises a first set of engagement features and a second set of engagement features (see annotated drawing below).
The recitation “a vehicle electrical steering system” has not been given significant patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
In regard to claim 15, Raybold et al. discloses the plurality of engagement features are non-uniformly shaped.
In regard to claim 16, Raybold et al. discloses the first set of engagement features and the second set of engagement features are separated by a portion of the electrical terminal without engagement features (see fig. 4).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (potting material/surrounding portion)][AltContent: textbox (1st set of engagement feature)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
734
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raybold et al..
In regard to claim 3, Raybold et al. does not disclose the plurality of engagement features are uniformly shaped.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by having the engagement features with uniformly shaped since applicants have presented no explanation that this particular configuration of the engagement features are significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces between two members. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
In regard to claim 12, Raybold et al discloses the header 60 is formed of insulative material (based on the drawing crosshatching.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by constructing the header of a plastic material which is highly resistant to degradation since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In regard to claim 14, Raybold et al. does not disclose the plurality of engagement features are uniformly shaped.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by having the engagement features with uniformly shaped since applicants have presented no explanation that this particular configuration of the engagement features are significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces between two members. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raybold et al. in view of Dermot (US 11248636 B2).
In regard to claim 8, Raybold et al. does not disclose the plurality of engagement features form a threading on the non-uniform outer surface of the electrical terminal.
Dermot discloses the plurality of engagement features form a threading on the non-uniform outer surface of a metal pin in order to produce an interference-fit fastening element that will be highly secure when inserted into a corresponding hole (col. 2, lines 47-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by constructing the engagement features as disclosed by Dermot in order to improve the adhesion between the terminal and the potting.
In regard to claim 9, Raybold et al. does not disclose the at least one engagement feature is formed with an extended dual laser interference patterning (xDLIP) process.
Dermot discloses a similar method which is also referred as “Laser Surface micro-Profiling” (LSmP), is achieved by scanning a substrate beneath a pulsating laser beam or by scanning the pulsating laser beam over the surface (e.g. via galvanometer) to achieve localised melting and or ablation directly on the pin material surface. The method of the present invention provides surface micro-profiles based around patterns which can be well-defined Moiré patterns and pre-determined in form. The combination of this novel method of producing a pre-determined pattern on a substrate by micro-profiling finds application across a number of industries including in the defined interference fit joints that are used within the transportation industry (col. 4, lines 39-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by using the “Laser Surface micro-Profiling” (LSmP) process as disclosed by Dermot in order to improve the interference fit joints.
However, Dermot does not disclose an extended dual laser interference patterning (xDLIP) process.
Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of forming engagement features which include an extended dual laser interference patterning (xDLIP) process are well known and expected in the art since xDLIP is a scalable, precise, and versatile laser-based structuring technology that leverages interference to create functional surfaces at unprecedented speeds. It is particularly valuable for industries needing rapid, repeatable, and material-agnostic micro/nano structuring for advanced functional surfaces.
In regard to claim 17, Raybold et al. does not disclose the plurality of engagement features form a threading on the non-uniform outer surface of the electrical terminal.
Dermot discloses the plurality of engagement features form a threading (see fig. 6(b) and 10) on the non-uniform outer surface of a metal pin in order to produce an interference-fit fastening element that will be highly secure when inserted into a corresponding hole (col. 2, lines 47-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by constructing the engagement features as disclosed by Dermot in order to improve the adhesion between the terminal and the potting.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (fig. 1 and para.[0003-0004} of the specification) in view of Dermot.
Applicant’s admitted prior art (fig. 1 and para.[0003-0004} of the specification) discloses an electrical terminal assembly for a vehicle electrical connector assembly comprising:
a header 12;
a potting material (see annotated drawing below) disposed within a cavity (see annotated drawing below) of the header 12; and
an electrical terminal 10 extending through the header 12 and the potting material, the electrical terminal 10 formed of metal.
However, Applicant’s admitted prior art (fig. 1 and para.[0003-0004} of the specification) does not disclose the electrical terminal 10 having a non-uniform outer surface including at least one engagement feature for adhering to the header 12 and the potting material.
Dermot discloses the plurality of engagement features on the non-uniform outer surface of a metal pin in order to produce an interference-fit fastening element that will be highly secure when inserted into a corresponding hole (col. 2, lines 47-49), wherein the plurality of engagement features comprises a first set of engagement features and a second set of engagement features (see fig. 1). Dermot also discloses a similar method which is also referred as “Laser Surface micro-Profiling” (LSmP), is achieved by scanning a substrate beneath a pulsating laser beam or by scanning the pulsating laser beam over the surface (e.g. via galvanometer) to achieve localised melting and or ablation directly on the pin material surface. The method of the present invention provides surface micro-profiles based around patterns which can be well-defined Moiré patterns and pre-determined in form. The combination of this novel method of producing a pre-determined pattern on a substrate by micro-profiling finds application across a number of industries including in the defined interference fit joints that are used within the transportation industry (col. 4, lines 39-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Raybold et al. by constructing the engagement features as disclosed by Dermot in order to improve the adhesion between the terminal and the potting and using the “Laser Surface micro-Profiling” (LSmP) process as disclosed by Dermot in order to improve the interference fit joints.
However, Dermot does not disclose an extended dual laser interference patterning (xDLIP) process.
Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of forming engagement features which include an extended dual laser interference patterning (xDLIP) process are well known and expected in the art since xDLIP is a scalable, precise, and versatile laser-based structuring technology that leverages interference to create functional surfaces at unprecedented speeds. It is particularly valuable for industries needing rapid, repeatable, and material-agnostic micro/nano structuring for advanced functional surfaces.
[AltContent: textbox (cavity)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (potting material)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
840
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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 (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.
Tdt
8/18/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights