DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 1/31/2024.
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
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 “first sidewall that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 16 – 22 are 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 5, lines 1 – 2, recite “wherein the first sidewall of the press-fit pin is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin…”. Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore incorporates all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “wherein a first sidewall of the press pin is sloped…”. A sidewall that is parallel to the longitudinal axis would not be sloped relative to that axis. Accordingly, claim 5 requires the same sidewall to be both sloped and parallel, which are inconsistent and mutually exclusive geometric conditions. Because it is unclear how the same structure can satisfy both limitations, the metes and bounds of claim 5 cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the sidewall as being sloped, as the independent claim requires that limitation, and the drawings point to a first sidewall (108) that is sloped.
Claim 16, line 13, recites “after the stamping, shaping edges of the tip part, the deformable part, and the anchoring part of each press-fit pin.”. This portion of the claim does not appear to be complete. This language renders the claim indefinite because it does not positively recite a complete method step. Specifically, the phrase “after the stamping” is a temporal clause that does not clearly define an affirmative act, and “shaping edges” is presented without a clear verb structure identifying the action to be performed. The Examiner suggests Applicant to amend this portion of the claim to recite a complete method step. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret this portion of the claim as requiring a step of shaping the edges of the tip part, the deformable part, and the anchoring part after the stamping operation. However, this interpretation is not conceded to be the only reasonable interpretation of the claim language. If Applicant does not agree with this interpretation, Applicant is required to amend the claims to clarify the intended scope, and such amendment will be considered upon further examination.
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) 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 20050181651).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) a press-fit pin (10), comprising:
a tip part (17) configured to guide the press-fit pin into an opening of a circuit board (i.e. 17 is capable of guiding 10 into an opening of a circuit board);
a deformable part (15) adjoining the tip part (17) and configured to deform upon insertion into the opening of the circuit board (¶0033);
an elongate part (13) adjoining the deformable part (15);
a base part (14) adjoining the elongate part (13); and
an anchoring part (12) adjoining the base part (14) and configured for insertion into a sleeve when a force is applied to the base part (12 is capable of being inserted into a sleeve when a force is applied on 14),
wherein the tip part (17) has a proximal region (portion between 17a and 19 in figure 1) adjoining the deformable part (15) and a distal region (17a) that is narrower than the proximal region (see figure 2, 17a),
wherein a first sidewall (19) of the press-fit pin (10) is sloped (see figure 1), with respect to a longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (10), at a first acute angle (angle of 17a) in the distal region (17a) and at a second acute angle (angle found between 17a and 19) in the proximal region (portion between 17a and 19 in figure 1),
wherein the first acute angle is greater than the second acute angle (i.e. see figure 2).
Although Matsumura does not explicitly quantify the acute angles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the relative steepness of the distal and proximal regions to control insertion force, retention force, and manufacturability. Determining specific acute angles constitutes routine optimization of a known result effective variable. Therefore, providing a first acute angle that is greater than a second acute angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the first acute angle (angle of 17a) is in a range of 22.5° to 27.5°.
Although Matsumura does not explicitly quantify the first acute angle, it teaches a press-fit pin having a tapered sidewall. The taper angle of such sidewall affects insertion force and retention force of the press fit connection, and therefore constitutes a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an appropriate acute angle through routine experimentation to obtain the desired balance of insertion and retention forces. Discovering an optimal value within the range of possible acute angles, including 22.5° to 27.5°, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the second acute angle (angle found between 17a and 19) is in a range of 3.5° to 10°.
Although Matsumura does not explicitly quantify the second acute angle, it teaches a press-fit pin having a tapered sidewall. The taper angle of such sidewall affects insertion force and retention force of the press fit connection, and therefore constitutes a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an appropriate acute angle through routine experimentation to obtain the desired balance of insertion and retention forces. Discovering an optimal value within the range of possible acute angles, including 3.5° to 10°, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the first acute angle (angle of 17a) is in a range of 22.5° to 27.5°, and wherein the second acute angle (angle found between 17a and 19) is in a range of 3.5° to 10°.
Although Matsumura does not explicitly quantify the first and second acute angles, it teaches a press-fit pin having a tapered sidewall. The taper angle of such sidewall affects insertion force and retention force of the press fit connection, and therefore constitutes a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an appropriate acute angle through routine experimentation to obtain the desired balance of insertion and retention forces. Discovering an optimal value within the range of possible acute angles, including 3.5° to 10° and 22.5° to 10°, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the first sidewall (19) of the press-fit pin (10) is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (see figure 2) along a region of the deformable part (15) that adjoins the proximal region (portion between 17a and 19 in figure 1) of the tip part (17).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein a second sidewall (there are two 19s in figure 2) of the press-fit pin (10) opposite the first sidewall (19) is sloped (see figure 2), with respect to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (10), at the first acute angle (angle of 17a) in the distal region (17a) and at the second acute angle (angle found between 17a and 19) in the proximal region (portion between 17a and 19 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the elongate part (13) has a first region (region between 13 and 20) that adjoins the deformable part (15) and a second region (region between 13 and 14) that adjoins the base part (14), and wherein the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) is wider than the first region (region between 13 and 20) of the elongate part (13) but narrower than the base part (14).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 7, wherein the first sidewall (19, 22) of the press-fit pin (10) has a stepped profile (see stepped profile between 13a and 14) where the first sidewall (19, 22) transitions from the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) to the base part (14).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 7, wherein the first sidewall (19, 22) of the press-fit pin (10) has a slanted profile (see slanted profile under 13 and above 20 in figure 2) where the first sidewall (19, 22) transitions from the first region (region between 13 and 20) of the elongate part (13) to the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 7, wherein the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) has a rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 2) in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (10).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3, annotation) the press-fit pin of claim 10, wherein a length of a first pair (i.e. see annotation) of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile (figure 1) is in a range of 1 to 1.5 times a length of a second pair (i.e. see annotation) of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile (figure 1).
Although Matsumura does not explicitly disclose that the length of the first pair of opposing equal length sides is in a range of 1 to 1.5 times the length of the second pair of opposing equal length sides, the relative proportions of the sides of a rectangular cross-section constitutes dimensional variables that affect predictable characteristics of the structure, such as strength, stiffness, and fit within an associated assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the relative side lengths of the rectangular profile of Matsumura through routine optimization to achieve suitable structural and functional performance. Discovering an optimal ratio, including a ratio within the claimed range of 1 to 1.5, would have involved only routine experimentation and therefore considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
~ Please see annotation of figure 1 in the Matsumura reference, where the first pair of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile and the second pair of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 10, wherein the rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 2) has rounded corners (see rounded corners of 14 at the bottom).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 1, wherein the anchoring part (12) has a rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 1) in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (10).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3, annotation) the press-fit pin of claim 13, wherein a length of a first pair (i.e. see annotation) of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile (figure 1) is in a range of 1.5 to 2.5 times a length of a second pair (i.e. see annotation) of opposing equal length sides of the rectangular cross-sectional profile (figure 1).
Although Matsumura does not explicitly disclose that the length of the first pair of opposing equal length sides is in a range of 1.5 to 2.5 times the length of the second pair of opposing equal length sides, the relative proportions of the sides of a rectangular cross-section constitutes dimensional variables that affect predictable characteristics of the structure, such as strength, stiffness, and fit within an associated assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the relative side lengths of the rectangular profile of Matsumura through routine optimization to achieve suitable structural and functional performance. Discovering an optimal ratio, including a ratio within the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5, would have involved only routine experimentation and therefore considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) the press-fit pin of claim 13, wherein the rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 2) has rounded corners (see rounded corners of 14 at the bottom).
Claim(s) 16 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 5094633) in view of Matsumura (US 20050181651).
Regarding claim 16, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) a method of manufacturing press-fit pins, the method comprising: stamping sheet metal (column 5, lines 12 – 16) to form a plurality of press-fit pins (see figure 8), each press-fit pin (1) comprising a
tip part (tip of 2) configured to guide the press-fit pin (1) into an opening of a circuit board (tip of 2 is capable of guiding the press-fit pin into an opening of a circuit), a deformable part (4) adjoining the tip part (tip of 2) and configured to deform upon insertion into the opening of the circuit board (4 is capable of deforming upon insertion into the opening of the circuit board), a base part (3) adjoining the elongate part, and an anchoring part (1) adjoining the base part (3) and configured for insertion into a sleeve when a force is applied to the base part (1 is capable of being inserted into a sleeve when a force is applied to 3), wherein the tip part (tip of 2) has a proximal region (region where 2 is located in) adjoining the deformable part (4) and a distal region (region at the tip of 2 at the bottom in figure 1) that is narrower than the proximal region (see figure 1), wherein a first sidewall (see figure 1, sidewall of 4) of the press-fit pin (1) is sloped (sidewall of 4 has a slope that connects 4 to 2), with respect to a longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (1), at a first acute angle (angle in tip of 2 at the bottom in figure 1) in the distal region (region at the tip of 2 at the bottom in figure 1) and at a second acute angle (angle in 2) in the proximal region (region where 2 is located in), wherein the first acute angle (angle in tip of 2 at the bottom in figure 1) is greater than the second acute angle (angle in 2); and
after the stamping, shaping edges of the tip part (tip of 2), the deformable part (4), and the anchoring part (1) of each press-fit pin (see figure 1).
But Arai does not explicitly disclose an elongate part adjoining the deformable part, a base part adjoining the elongate part.
Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) a connector comprising an elongate part (13) adjoining the deformable part (15), a base part (14) adjoining the elongate part (13).
Although Arai does not explicitly quantify the acute angles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the relative steepness of the distal and proximal regions to control insertion force, retention force, and manufacturability. Determining specific acute angles constitutes routine optimization of a known result effective variable. Therefore, providing a first acute angle that is greater than a second acute angle would have been an obvious matter of design choice (See MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai with the connector as disclosed by Matsumura to provide an elongate part adjoining the deformable part, a base part adjoining the elongate part, to increase the mechanical stability of the press-fit pin.
Regarding claim 17, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 16.
But Arai does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the elongate part of each press-fit pin has a first region that adjoins the deformable part and a second region that adjoins the base part, and the second region of the elongate part is wider than the first region of the elongate part but narrower than the base part.
Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) a connector wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the elongate part (13) of each press-fit pin (10) has a first region (region between 13 and 20) that adjoins the deformable part (15) and a second region (region between 13 and 14) that adjoins the base part (14), and the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) is wider than the first region (region between 13 and 20) of the elongate part (13) but narrower than the base part (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai with the connector as disclosed by Matsumura to provide wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the elongate part of each press-fit pin has a first region that adjoins the deformable part and a second region that adjoins the base part, and the second region of the elongate part is wider than the first region of the elongate part but narrower than the base part, to increase the mechanical stability of the press-fit pin.
Regarding claim 18, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 17.
But Arai does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the first sidewall of each press-fit pin has a stepped profile where the first sidewall transitions from the second region of the elongate part to the base part.
Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) a connector wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the first sidewall (19, 22) of each press-fit pin (10) has a stepped profile (see stepped profile between 13a and 14) where the first sidewall (19, 22) transitions from the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) to the base part (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai with the connector as disclosed by Matsumura to provide wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the first sidewall of each press-fit pin has a stepped profile where the first sidewall transitions from the second region of the elongate part to the base part, to increase the mechanical stability of the press-fit pin.
Regarding claim 19, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 17.
But Arai does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the second region of the elongate part of each press-fit pin has a rectangular cross-sectional profile in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin.
Matsumura teaches (figures 1 – 3) a connector wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the second region (region between 13 and 14) of the elongate part (13) of each press-fit pin (10) has a rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 2) in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai with the connector as disclosed by Matsumura to provide wherein the sheet metal is stamped such that the second region of the elongate part of each press-fit pin has a rectangular cross-sectional profile in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin, to increase the mechanical stability of the press-fit pin.
Regarding claim 20, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 19, wherein the shaping comprises: embossing each press-fit pin (see figure 1) such that the rectangular cross-sectional profile (see figure 1) has rounded corners (see rounded corners at the bottom of 3).
Regarding claim 21, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 16, wherein the sheet metal is stamped (column 5, lines 12 – 16) such that the anchoring part (1) of each press-fit pin (see figure 1) has a rectangular cross-sectional profile (see rectangular profile of 1 in figures 1 and 2) in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the press-fit pin (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Arai teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 21, wherein the shaping comprises: embossing each press-fit pin (see figure 1) such that the rectangular cross-sectional profile (see rectangular profile of 1 in figures 1 and 2) has rounded corners (see figures 3 and 4).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040242082 Tsuchiya et al., US 20060264076 Chen et al., and US 20190131733 Takagi et al. are examples of various press-fit pin configurations that yield a press-fit pin that is less susceptible to damage over time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834