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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "137" and "131" have both been used to designate the fixing catch. Specifically, in figure 5, the “137” pointed to the fixing catch should be changed to –131--. 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi et al. (2007/0093130).
With regard to claim 1, Shiraishi teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught in the Abstract: “An electrical flat socket contact device 100 for an electrical power connection (the Abstract teaches connecting the conductor to an electric wire) comprising: a carrier structure (shown in figure 7), wherein the carrier structure forms a primarily cuboid contact box unit 110, into which a primarily cuboid tab contact 200 for electrically contacting the flat socket contact device 100 can be plugged; and a primarily cuboid contact body (body of the carrier structure shown in figure 7) arranged in the contact box unit for contacting the tab contact 200 plugged into the contact box unit, wherein the contact body is arranged on a base wall 111 of the carrier structure, wherein on a top wall 112 of the carrier structure arranged opposite the base wall 111 there is arranged at least one spring element unit 117 for mechanically contacting the tab contact 200, and wherein the top wall 112 has a greater wall thickness than the base wall 111, wherein the top wall 112 and the base wall 111 are defined by two large surfaces of the cuboid contact box unit and are arranged parallel to each other”.
With regard to claim 2, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the top wall 112 comprises an inner partial wall 112a and an outer partial wall 112b, wherein the inner 112a and outer 112b partial walls are arranged to contact one another in a planar manner, wherein the inner partial wall 112a defines an inner wall of the contact box unit, and wherein the at least one spring element unit 117 is formed on the inner partial wall 112a”.
With regard to claim 3, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the base wall 111 is integrally connected via a first side wall element 113 to the inner partial wall 112a and via a second side wall element 114 to the outer partial wall 112b, and wherein the first 113 and second 114 wall elements define side walls of the contact box unit”.
With regard to claim 4, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 3”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the first 113 and second 114 side wall elements are each arranged at an angle to the base wall 111 and to the inner 112a and outer 112b partial walls via 90° bends”.
With regard to claim 5, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the at least one spring element unit 117 is formed integrally on the inner partial wall 112a”.
With regard to claim 6, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein the at least one spring element unit 117 is designed as a bending element and is arranged on a side edge of the inner partial wall 112a, and wherein the spring element unit 117 extends at least partially along the inner partial wall 112a via a 180° bend”.
With regard to claim 8, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8: “wherein a fixing catch 112f is arranged on the outer partial wall 112a and/or on the base wall for fixing the flat socket contact device 100 to a holding device 400”.
With regard to claim 10, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the carrier structure is designed as a multi-surface bending structure”.
With regard to claim 11, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein at least one contacting dome and/or at least one contacting spring 117b is formed on the contact body for contacting the tab contact 200”.
With regard to claim 18, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the tab contact 200 can be clamped in the contact box unit via the spring element unit 117”.
With regard to claim 20, Shiraishi teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught in the Abstract: “An electrical connection system comprising: an electric flat socket contact device 100 comprising a carrier structure (shown in figure 7) and a primarily cuboid contact body 119a, the carrier structure forms a primarily cuboid contact box unit 110, the primarily cuboid contact body arranged in the contact box unit, the contact body 119a is arranged on a base wall 111 of the carrier structure, wherein on a top wall 112 of the carrier structure arranged opposite the base wall 111 there is arranged at least one spring element unit 117, wherein the top wall 112 has a greater wall thickness than the base wall 111; and a primarily cuboid tab contact 200 pluggable into the primarily cuboid contact box unit, the primarily cuboid tab contact 200 engages the primarily cuboid contact body 119a when the tab contact 200 is plugged into the contact box unit, wherein the at least one spring element unit 117 mechanically contacts the tab contact 200 when the tab contact 200 is plugged into the contact box unit, wherein the top wall 112 and the base wall 111 are defined by two large surfaces of the cuboid contact box unit and are arranged parallel to each other”.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (2007/0093130) in view of Hirahayashi (2012/0295493).
With regard to claim 7, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the inner partial wall and the outer partial wall are connected to one another via at least one clinch connection and/or a welded connection”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Hirahayashi teaches, as shown in figure 4: “wherein the inner partial wall 38 and the outer partial wall 19 are connected to one another via at least one clinch connection 29 and/or a welded connection”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hirahayashi with the invention of Shiraishi in order to protect the edge of the inner partial wall (Hirahayashi, paragraph 35).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (2007/0093130) in view of Goto (2018/0083380).
With regard to claim 9, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 2”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the rear wall is formed integrally on a side edge of the inner partial wall, and wherein the rear wall is arranged at an angle to the inner partial wall via a 90° bend”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Goto teaches, as shown in figure 7: “wherein the rear wall 45B is formed integrally on a side edge of the inner partial wall 45A, and wherein the rear wall 45B is arranged at an angle to the inner partial wall 45A via a 90° bend”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Goto with the invention of Shiraishi in order to form a spring contact in different locations within the flat sock contact device (Goto, paragraph 24).
With regard to claim 15, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the contact box unit is delimited at a rear end via a rear wall of the carrier structure”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Goto teaches, as shown in figure 7: “wherein the contact box unit 30 is delimited at a rear end via a rear wall 45B of the carrier structure”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Goto with the invention of Shiraishi in order to form a spring contact in different locations within the flat sock contact device (Goto, paragraph 24).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (2007/0093130) in view of Himmel (WO2018073346A1).
With regard to claim 12, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the contact body is connected via at least one clinch connection to the base wall of the carrier structure within the contact box unit”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Himmel teaches, as shown in figures 4-5: “wherein the contact body 2 is connected via at least one clinch connection 20 to the base wall 5 of the carrier structure 1 within the contact box unit 2”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Himmel with the invention of Shiraishi in order to hold the contact body to the base wall.
With regard to claim 13, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein at least one clinch connection is formed at a front end, via which the tab contact can be plugged into the contact box unit, and/or at a rear end of the contact box unit arranged opposite the front end”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Himmel teaches, as shown in figures 4-5: “wherein at least one clinch connection 9 is formed at a front end, via which the tab contact K can be plugged into the contact box unit 2, and/or at a rear end of the contact box unit arranged opposite the front end”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Himmel with the invention of Shiraishi in order to hold the spring in position (Himmel, translation page 3 lines 10-14).
With regard to claim 14, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the contact body, at a front end and/or at a side region of the contact body, comprises at least one receiving recess for receiving at least one clinch connection”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Himmel teaches, as shown in figures 4-5: “wherein the contact body 2, at a front end and/or at a side region of the contact body 2, comprises at least one receiving recess 8 for receiving at least one clinch connection 9”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Himmel with the invention of Shiraishi in order to hold the spring in position (Himmel, translation page 3 lines 10-14).
With regard to claim 16, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not specifically teach: “wherein the carrier structure is manufactured from stainless steel or from a copper compound”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel or a copper compound to form the carrier structure since both are well-known for forming electrically conductive structures (see e.g., Himmel, translation page 4 lines 12-16). Also, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (2007/0093130).
With regard to claim 17, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and taught in paragraph 7: “wherein the carrier structure is configured via the at least one spring element unit 117 to provide a contact normal force… for contacting the plugged-in tab contact 200”.
Shiraishi does not specifically teach the contact normal for being “of up to 40 N, preferably 50 N, particularly preferably 60 N”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spring element unit to have a contact normal force of up to 40 N, preferably 50 N, particularly preferably 60 N in order to provide contact force to maintain connection between the contact tab and the Flat socket contact device (Shiraishi, paragraph 7). Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 19, Shiraishi teaches: “The electrical flat socket contact device according to Claim 1”, as shown above.
Shiraishi does not teach: “wherein the flat socket contact device is designed for electrical voltages of at least approximately: 200V, 300V, 400V, 500V, 1kV, 1.25kV or 1.5kV and/or for electrical currents of at least approximately: 200A, 300A, 400A, 500A, 600A, 800A, 1kA or 1.25kA”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the flat socket contact device for electrical voltages of at least approximately: 200V, 300V, 400V, 500V, 1kV, 1.25kV or 1.5kV and/or for electrical currents of at least approximately: 200A, 300A, 400A, 500A, 600A, 800A, 1kA or 1.25kA in order to use the contact for high powered connections. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1 and 20, the Applicant argues that the cited reference Shiraishi does not teach a cuboid contact box unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since 110 is a cuboid contact box unit. The Applicant further argues that the top wall and base wall in the cited reference are not parallel surfaces. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the top wall 112 and base wall 111 are defined by parallel surfaces at the top and bottom of 110 in figure 5. The Applicant further argues that the plug is positioned on depressed part 119 rather than base wall 111. The examiner respectfully disagrees, since 119 is part of wall 111. However, since the cuboid contact box unit was not mapped, a second Non-Final is being issued.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights