DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-15, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Regarding claims 1, 11, and 23 the term “locking tang” is ambiguous as used in the claims and in the disclosure. The Google definition of “tang” is:
PNG
media_image1.png
946
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Merriam Webster’s definition of tang is:
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The closest applicable definition may be “the projection on the blade of a tool . . . by which the blade is held firmly in the handle,” but in this case, there is no blade or handle, and consequently it is unknown what would or would not be considered to be a “tang.” Note that the figures of the disclosure are ambiguous as to the structure of the “tang” 54. Various possible structures corresponding to applicant’s “tang” are known. For example, portion 130 of US 12398835 corresponds to what is called a “tang” by applicant (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
1212
1008
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively arms 60 as shown in figure 5 of US 6688654 reproduced below likewise correspond to what applicant identifies as a “tang.”
PNG
media_image4.png
598
1012
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note that neither of these structures would reasonably be referred to as a “tang.” It is unknown whether structures, such as these known in the prior art, would or would not be considered to be “tangs” as used in the claims and disclosures. Therefore, it is unknown what would or would not be considered to be a “tang” for the purposes of determining the scope of the claims. The term “tang” is treated as meaning a latching mechanism.
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 anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 1-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buck et al. US 12398835 (“Buck”). Regarding claim 1, Buck discloses an electrical header assembly (i.e., an assembly in which electrical components may be mounted), comprising:
an electrical header 120 (i.e., a structure capable of housing electrical components) including a first mounting flange 126 having a locking tang 130; and
an electrical header connector 110 (i.e., a structure capable of housing electrical components) including a second mounting flange (114, 116) having a flared lip (116, labeled FL in annotated figure 3 below) located at a distal tip of the second mounting flange, wherein the locking tang and the flared lip are configured to engage one another to secure the electrical header to the electrical header connector as the electrical header is moved into engagement with the electrical header connector.
PNG
media_image5.png
904
1086
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1340
990
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the first mounting flange is disk-shaped and includes a front surface (labeled FS above), a rear surface (labeled RS above), and a circumferential surface (labeled CS above) that connects between the front surface and the rear surface.
Per claim 3, the locking tang is formed within the circumferential surface.
Per claim 4, there is a recess (labeled RC above) formed in the rear surface.
Per claim 5, there is a first seal 125 received within the recess and arranged to seal against the flared lip.
Per claim 6, there is a second seal 123 arranged to seal against a cylindrical body 114 of the second mounting flange.
Per claim 7, the locking tang is configured to flex outwardly to accommodate the flared lip within a slot 129a of the first mounting flange as the electrical header is moved into further engagement with the electrical header connector.
Per claim 8, the flared lip 116 is configured to engage (i.e. capable of engaging) a cam surface of the locking tang to force the locking tang to flex outwardly.
Per claim 9, the flared lip is configured to engage (i.e. capable of engaging) a cam surface of the locking tang to force the locking tang to flex outwardly, where the cam surface includes a lower plateau, an upper plateau, and an angled surface that connects between the lower plateau and the upper plateau (note that the cam surface of the locking tang is not positively claimed).
Per claim 10, the flared lip is configured to engage a cam surface of the locking tang . . . where the flared lip enters the slot at the lower plateau and forces the locking tang to flex further outwardly as it travels along the angled surface toward the upper plateau as the electrical header is moved into further engagement with the electrical header connector (note that the cam surface of the locking tang is not positively claimed).
Per claim 21, there is a recess (labeled RC above) formed in a rear surface of the first mounting flange, and a first seal 125 received within the recess and arranged to seal against the flared lip.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buck in view of the admitted prior art (“APA”).
Regarding claim 11, Buck discloses an electrical component, comprising: an electrical header assembly (i.e., an assembly in which electrical components may be mounted), including an electrical header 120 (i.e., a structure capable of housing electrical components) and an electrical header connector 110 (i.e., a structure capable of housing electrical components) configured for (i.e., capable of) mounting the electrical header relative to a wall of a sealed enclosure;
the electrical header including a first mounting flange 126 having a locking tang 130;
wherein the first mounting flange is disk-shaped and includes a front surface (labeled FS above), a rear surface (labeled RS above), and a circumferential surface (labeled CS above) that connects between the front surface and the rear surface, and the locking tang is formed within the circumferential surface; and
the electrical header connector including a second mounting flange (114, 116) having a
flared lip 116 that can engage the locking tang to secure the electrical header to the electrical header connector as the electrical header is moved into engagement with the electrical header connector.
wherein the locking tang is configured to flex outwardly to accommodate the flared lip
within a slot 129a of the first mounting flange as the electrical header is moved into further engagement with the electrical header connector.
Buck does not disclose a sealed enclosure. The admitted prior art includes a sealed enclosure. Specification ¶ 0002: “Many electrical components, such as traction battery packs, for example, require a gas-tight enclosure. Attaching an electrical header to the gas-tight enclosure typically requires various fasteners and sealing arrangements.”
It would have been obvious to combine the Buck assembly with a sealed enclosure as was known in the prior art, such as by welding the base 112 onto a wall of the enclosure, as noted at Buck at col. 5, lines 50-60. The reason would have been to provide a sealed conduit between the exterior and interior of the containment-component (sealed enclosure). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Per claim 12, the APA discloses that the electrical component is a traction battery pack.
Per claim 13, the second mounting flange of the electrical header connector includes a base 112.
Regarding claim 14, welding the base 112 of the Buck assembly onto the sealed enclosure, as noted at Buck at col. 5, lines 50-60, would result in the base being integrated as part of the wall of the sealed enclosure.
Per claim 15, at noted regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to weld the base 112 onto the wall of the enclosure.
Per claim 18, there is a recess formed in the rear surface, and further comprising a first seal 125 received within the recess and arranged to seal against the flared lip.
Per claim 19, there is a second seal 123 arranged to seal against a cylindrical body of the second mounting flange.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Tsuchiya et al. US 398706 (“Tsuchiya”).
Regarding claim 22, Buck discloses a housing at lead line 122 in figure 1. Buck does not disclose an electrical contact assembly held within the housing. Tsuchiya discloses an electrical contact assembly (11, 31) held withing a housing 12.
It would have been obvious to mount a contact assembly such as a contact 11 and housing 31 as taught in Tsuchiya in a header 120 as taught in Buck. The reason would have been to facilitate electrical transmissions between one side of a panel or an enclosure and the opposite side of a panel or enclosure as was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 23, Buck discloses an electrical header assembly, comprising:
an electrical header 120 (i.e., an assembly in which electrical components may be mounted), including a housing (at lead line 122 in figure 1) having a first mounting flange 126, the first mounting flange being disk-shaped and including a front surface (labeled FS above), a rear surface (labeled RS above), and a circumferential surface (labeled CS above) that connects between the front surface and the rear surface, the first mounting flange having a locking tang 130 formed within the circumferential surface;
an electrical header connector 110 (i.e., a structure capable of housing electrical components) including a second mounting flange 114 having a flared lip (116, labeled FL above); and
the locking tang is configured to flex outwardly to accommodate the flared lip within a slot of the first mounting flange as the electrical header is moved into the electrical header connector,
wherein the locking tang and the flared lip are configured to engage one another to secure the electrical header to the electrical header connector as the electrical header is moved into engagement with the electrical header connector.
Buck does not disclose an electrical contact assembly held within the housing. Tsuchiya discloses an electrical contact assembly (11, 31) held withing a housing 12.
It would have been obvious to mount a contact assembly such as a contact 11 and housing 31 as taught in Tsuchiya in a header 120 as taught in Buck. The reason would have been to facilitate electrical transmissions between one side of a panel or an enclosure and the opposite side of a panel or enclosure as was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection set out above, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.” MPEP section 2171. Applicant argues that the examiner relying on the Google definition “goes too far” because the Google definitions are “illustrative examples of the general concept.” The examiner disagrees. “A definition is a statement that explains the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or concept. It outlines the essential characteristics, boundaries, and qualities that identify a subject.” Google definition of “definition.” It remains unclear what would or would not be considered to be a “tang” as the term is used in the disclosure and claims.
Applicant notes that the specification describes the “tang.” The examiner notes that the description in the specification does not define the term “tang” and the structure(s) described seems to have little in common with what the term “tang” means under it’s plain meaning. Again, the specification gives little indication of what would or would not be considered to be a “tang” for the purposes of determining the scope of the claims.
Regarding Buck ‘835 as applied in the rejections, the Buck flared lip is clearly located at the distal end of the second mounting flange114. See figure 3 annotated above. The “flared lip” is not limited the structure located strictly at the end of the lead line 116, but is all of the flared portion that extends beyond the diameter of the cylindrical supporting column at lead line 114.
Regarding claim 11 and 18, Buck discloses all the claimed elements as set out above. An “ovular outer collar” as taught in Buck is likewise a “disk shaped mounting flange.” Buck discloses slot 129a as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights