DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/17/2026.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, recites “a housing having a through hole and a retaining wall in the through hole”. The recitation of “a retaining wall in the through hole” does not make sense in view of the claimed structure. A through hole is an opening through a structure, therefore, reciting a retaining wall as being “in” the through hole does not clearly define the intended structural relationship between the retaining wall and the through hole. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to more clearly recite the intended relationship, such as by reciting “a housing having a through hole, the through hole passing through a retaining wall”, or otherwise amend the claim as appropriate to clearly define the relationship between the through hole and the retaining wall. Any such amendment must find adequate support in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim 16, line 2, recites “a housing having a through hole and a retaining wall in the through hole”. The recitation of “a retaining wall in the through hole” does not make sense in view of the claimed structure. A through hole is an opening through a structure, therefore, reciting a retaining wall as being “in” the through hole does not clearly define the intended structural relationship between the retaining wall and the through hole. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to more clearly recite the intended relationship, such as by reciting “a housing having a through hole, the through hole passing through a retaining wall”, or otherwise amend the claim as appropriate to clearly define the relationship between the through hole and the retaining wall. Any such amendment must find adequate support in the originally filed disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20110250769).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17, annotation) a connector assembly (100’), comprising: a housing (1’) having a through hole (121’) and a retaining wall (5’) in the through hole (121’); a pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’) fixed to the retaining wall (5’); and a conductive terminal (2’, 7’) inserting into the through hole (121’), wherein the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) is spaced apart from the retaining wall (5’) by the pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’).
~ Please see annotation of figure 11 in the Wang reference, where the pad 4a can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17, annotation) the connector assembly of claim 1, wherein the through hole (121’) has a first opening (see front portion of connector in figure 10, where the opening on the opposite side of opening 121’ can be seen) and a second opening (121’) opposite to each other, the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) inserts into the through hole (121’) from the second opening (see figure 11), the retaining wall (5’) has a first surface (surface on opposite side of 5’ in figure 11) and a second surface (surface where 5’ is pointing to in figure 11) respectively facing the first opening (see front portion of connector in figure 10, where the opening on the opposite side of opening 121’ can be seen) and the second opening (121’), and the pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’) is in contact with the second surface (surface where 5’ is pointing to in figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 2, wherein an inner surface of the through hole (121’) has a first side (i.e. top side inside the through hole 121’) and a second side (i.e. bottom side inside the through hole 121’) opposite to each other, the retaining wall (5’) is connected to the first side (top side inside the through hole 121’) and extends toward the second side (i.e. bottom side inside the through hole 121’; see figure 13), and the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) passes through the retaining wall (5’) via a gap (60) formed between the retaining wall (5’) and the second side (i.e. bottom side inside the through hole 121’).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17, annotation) the connector assembly of claim 3, wherein a height of the retaining wall (5’) relative to the first side (see first side of 10’ in figure 10) is greater than a height of the pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’) relative to the first side (see first side of 10’ in figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17, annotation) the connector assembly of claim 1, wherein the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) is in contact with the pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17, annotation) a connector assembly (100’), comprising: a housing (1’) having a through hole (121’) and a retaining wall (5’) in the through hole (121’), wherein the retaining wall (5’) has a first surface (surface on opposite side of 5’ in figure 11) and a second surface (surface where 5’ is pointing to in figure 11) facing away from each other; a pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’) fixed to the second surface (surface where 5’ is pointing to in figure 11) of the retaining wall (5’); and a conductive terminal (2’, 7’) inserting into the through hole (121’) and passing through the retaining wall (5’) from a side of the second surface (surface where 5’ is pointing to in figure 11) to a side of the first surface (surface on opposite side of 5’ in figure 11), wherein the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) abuts against a side of the pad (4a; see figure 10, pad surrounding through hole near 51’) away from the retaining wall (5’; see figure 11).
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) 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20110250769) in view of Lu (CN 218887727, cited in the IDS on 2/11/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 1.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the retaining wall comprises a protrusion, the pad comprises an engaging hole, and the protrusion is engaged with the engaging hole.
Lu teaches (figures 1 – 2) a connector wherein the retaining wall (7) comprises a protrusion (14), the pad (8; see figure 2) comprises an engaging hole (15), and the protrusion (14) is engaged with the engaging hole (15).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Lu to provide the retaining wall comprising a protrusion, the pad comprising an engaging hole, and the protrusion being engaged with the engaging hole, to improve the operational safety and service life of the circuit board.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 5.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein a material of the retaining wall comprises plastic, and a material of the pad comprises metal.
Lu teaches (figures 1 – 2) a connector wherein a material of the retaining wall (7) comprises plastic, and a material of the pad (8; see figure 2) comprises metal (i.e. 8 is a grounding gasket, therefore it is inherently made of metal).
Although Lu does not expressly disclose that the material of the retaining wall is plastic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the retaining wall from a plastic material because plastic is conventionally used for connector housing and retaining features due to its electrical insulation and moldability, representing the predictable use of known materials according to their established properties (MPEP § 2143). 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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Lu to provide wherein a material of the retaining wall comprises plastic, and a material of the pad comprises metal, to improve the operational safety and service life of the circuit board.
Claim(s) 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20110250769) in view of Fabian (US 7607953).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 7, wherein the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) comprises: a terminal portion (2’ is inserted in through hole in figure 13; 71’) inserting into the through hole (121’; 67’).
But Wang does not explicitly disclose the at least one extending portion connected to the terminal portion and in contact with the pad.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector comprising at least one extending portion (118) connected to the terminal portion (104) and in contact with the pad (22).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide the at least one extending portion connected to the terminal portion and in contact with the pad, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 8.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the at least one extending portion is two, and the extending portions are respectively connected to opposite two edges of the terminal portion.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein a number of the at least one extending portion (118) is two (see figure 2B, second 118 is on top of 114), and the extending portions (118) are respectively connected to opposite two edges of the terminal portion (104).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide wherein a number of the at least one extending portion is two, and the extending portions are respectively connected to opposite two edges of the terminal portion, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 9.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal portion has two end surfaces respectively at the two edges, and the extending portions are respectively extended away from the end surfaces.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein the terminal portion (104, 204) has two end surfaces (222, 224) respectively at the two edges, and the extending portions (118, 218) are respectively extended away from the end surfaces (222, 224).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide wherein the terminal portion has two end surfaces respectively at the two edges, and the extending portions are respectively extended away from the end surfaces, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 9.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal portion is bended such that the extending portions are extended to a side of the terminal portion adjacent to the retaining wall.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein the terminal portion (104, 204) is bended such that the extending portions (118, 218) are extended to a side of the terminal portion (104, 204) adjacent to the retaining wall (20).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide wherein the terminal portion is bended such that the extending portions are extended to a side of the terminal portion adjacent to the retaining wall, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 1, wherein the conductive terminal (2’, 7’) comprises: a terminal portion (i.e. see terminal portion of 2’ being inserted in hole in figure 13) inserting into the through hole (121’).
But Wang does not explicitly disclose an elastic portion connected to the terminal portion and in contact with an inner surface of the through hole.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector comprising an elastic portion (106, 206) connected to the terminal portion (104, 204) and in contact with an inner surface of the through hole (24).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide an elastic portion connected to the terminal portion and in contact with an inner surface of the through hole, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 12.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic portion has a connecting end connected to an end of the terminal portion in the through hole, the inner surface of the through hole has a first side and a second side opposite to each other, the terminal portion is between the first side and the elastic portion, and the elastic portion is between the terminal portion and the second side.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein the elastic portion (106, 206) has a connecting end (122, 222) connected to an end of the terminal portion (104, 204) in the through hole (24), the inner surface of the through hole (24) has a first side (i.e. top side where 22 is located on figure 2B) and a second side (i.e. bottom side where 110 is located on figure 2B) opposite to each other, the terminal portion (104, 204) is between the first side (i.e. see figure 2A) and the elastic portion (106, 206), and the elastic portion (106, 206) is between the terminal portion (104, 204) and the second side (i.e. bottom side where 110 is located on figure 2B).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide wherein the elastic portion has a connecting end connected to an end of the terminal portion in the through hole, the inner surface of the through hole has a first side and a second side opposite to each other, the terminal portion is between the first side and the elastic portion, and the elastic portion is between the terminal portion and the second side, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 13.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic portion further has a distal end abutting against the terminal portion.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein the elastic portion (106, 206) further has a distal end (110, 210) abutting against the terminal portion (104, 204).
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 Wang with the connector as disclosed by Fabian to provide wherein the elastic portion further has a distal end abutting against the terminal portion, to reduce manufacturing complexity and improve the ability of the terminal to reliably accommodate multiple wire gauges.
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches (figures 9 – 17) the connector assembly of claim 14.
But Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the terminal portion further has a protrusion protruding toward the elastic portion and abutting against the distal end.
Fabian teaches (figures 2A – 5) a connector wherein the terminal portion (104, 204) further has a protrusion (208) protruding toward the elastic portion (106, 206) and abutting against the distal end (110, 210).
Although Fabian forms the protrusion in the elastic portion rather than on the terminal portion as recited in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang to include Fabian’s protrusion and to form the protrusion on the terminal portion instead, because the protrusion merely functions as an abutting stop between two mating components. Placing the stop on either of the opposing members would have been a predictable and equivalent design alternative that achieves the same movement limiting function and would not change the principle of operation of the device. Moreover, forming the protrusion on the terminal portion would have predictably improved the connector’s mechanical stability over time. Therefore, the specific placement of the protrusion constitutes an obvious matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 4, filed on 6/17/2026, with respect to the objection to the title of the invention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title of the invention has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/17/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments for claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that there is no structure in Wang that can be reasonably identified as the claimed retaining wall that is simultaneously disposed in the through hole and fixed to a pad. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang discloses a connector with a housing 1’, a retaining wall 5’, through holes 121’ and 122’, and a pad (see annotation of figure 10). As seen in figure 11 of Wang, the housing 1’ includes a second opening (see annotation of figure 10) corresponding to the through holes 121’ and 122’, and a retaining wall 5’ with a fixed pad (see annotation of figure 10) that is disposed within the through hole region when the connector is assembled as seen in figure 13. Further, in marked up figure 13, the retaining wall 5’ is inside the housing 1’ when it is fully assembled, and the marked-up “pads” on the first surface (see annotation of figure 10) of the retaining wall 5’ are inside the through holes 121’ and 122’. Further, in marked up figure 13, the terminals 2’ are spaced apart from the retaining wall 5’ by the marked up “pad”. Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 and claim 16 are maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
586
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the arguments for claim 2, Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would reasonably expect the pad to be positioned between the entrance (i.e. second opening) and the wall. Further, applicant argues that there is no structure in Wang that can be reasonably identified as satisfying such relationship. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in the marked-up figure 10, there is a “pad” that surrounds the through hole of retaining wall 5’ in the second surface where 2’ is inserted (see marked up figure 13, where the pad is in contact with the second surface of the retaining wall 5’). Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Regarding the arguments for claim 5, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because it relies on a motivation that was not asserted in the Non-Final rejection mailed on 3/17/2026 (see page 5 of Non-Final rejection mailed on 3/17/2026). The rejection does not propose modifying Wang merely because the Lu allegedly provides “improved stability”, nor does it require replacing the insert molded “first contact module” of Wang. Rather, the rejection applies the retention arrangement of Lu, including a protrusion and an engaging hole, to provide secure engagement between the connector and the circuit board. Lu expressly identifies improved operational safety and service life of the circuit board as benefits of its retention arrangement (see Abstract of Lu), thereby providing a reason for the proposed modification. The rejection does not require eliminating the insert molded structure in Wang, rather, the proposed modification concerns the manner in which the retaining wall is mechanically retained to the pad. Thus, the proposed modification does not require replacing the unitary retaining wall arrangement of Wang with the multi-component arrangement of Lu, but instead modifies the existing retaining wall and pad arrangement in Wang to provide the known protrusion and engaging hole in Lu. The rejection identifies a specific retention arrangement taught by Lu, an express benefit associated with the arrangement, and a reason for applying the arrangement to Wang. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 is maintained.
Regarding the arguments for claim 8, Applicant argues that in Fabian, “the top edge 118 only makes temporary contact with the cap’s extended portion 22 during a temporary pre-loaded state. Once a wire is fully inserted, the top edge 118 moves away from and completely breaks contact with an extended portion 22…Fabian fails to disclose or suggest a structural configuration where a pad is continuously sandwiched between the extending portion and the retaining wall…”. The argument is acknowledged. However, such argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim requires that the “at least one extending portion connected to the terminal portion and in contact with the pad” but does not specify a particular operational state in which the extending portion must be in contact with the pad, nor does the claim require such contact to be maintained throughout operation. Accordingly, although the extending portion 118 and the extended portion 22 subsequently disengage as the wire is fully inserted, this does not negate the disclosed contact between the extending portion 118 and the extended portion 22 or otherwise distinguish the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights