DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 23 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Original claims 1-20 were directed to a connecting terminal. New claim 23 is directed to a method of connecting a wire to a terminal. The terminal of original claim 1 can be provided, made, and/or used without using the method of claim 23. The method of claim 23 can be used on a terminal other than the terminal of claim 1, such as a terminal without first and second arms.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Suzuki US 8882549. Regarding claim 22, Suzuki discloses a connecting terminal assembly, comprising:
a wire 2;
a connection terminal 4, including:
a bottom plate (labeled BP below) having a plurality of bumps 8 and/or a plurality of recesses arranged on a surface of the bottom plate, the bumps and/or the recesses sized and shaped to scrape an insulated layer of the wire (e.g., an insulative oxidized aluminum layer formed on the surface of aluminum wire) and form an electrical connection with the wire via
ultrasonic welding;
a first arm (labeled A1 below) extending from a first end of the first arm to a second end of the first arm; and
a second arm (labeled A2) extending from a first end of the second arm to a second end of the second arm, the first end of the first arm and the first end of the second arm are
respectively coupled to a pair of sides of the bottom plate, and the first arm, the bottom
plate, and the second arm form a space accommodating the wire.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 8882549 in view of Schroll US 12244114. Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a connecting terminal, comprising:
a bottom plate (labeled BP in annotated figure 1B below) having a plurality of bumps 8 and/or a plurality of recesses arranged on a surface of the bottom plate, the bumps and/or the recesses adapted to scrape (i.e., capable scraping) an insulated layer of a wire and form an electrical connection with the wire;
a first arm (labeled A1) extending from a first end (labeled E1) of the first arm to a second end (labeled E2) of the first arm, and
a second arm (labeled A2) extending from a first end of the second arm to a second end of the second arm, the first end of the first arm and the first end of the second arm are respectively coupled to a pair of sides of the bottom plate, and the first arm, the bottom plate, and the second arm form a space adapted to (i.e., for) accommodating the wire.
Suzuki does not disclose that the first and second arms include mating tenons and grooves.
Schroll discloses a crimp ferrule 100 where the first and second arms (labeled A1 and A2 below) have second ends (140, 142) which have mating tenons 141 and grooves 143 mateable with each other (col. 4, lines 10-25).
It would have been obvious to form the second ends of the Suzuki arms with mating tenons and grooves as taught in Schroll. The reason for doing so would have been to maximize closure of the seam 150 as taught in Schroll (col. 4, lines 10-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1106
978
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, the Suzuki bumps and/or the recesses are adapted to (i.e., capable of) scrape the insulated layer of the wire during ultrasonic welding.
Per claim 3, the Suzuki first arm includes a first bend (labeled b1 above) portion arranged thereon, and the second arm includes a second bend portion (labeled b2 above) arranged
thereon.
Per claim 4, each of the Suzuki bumps or each of the recesses is circular or polygonal.
Regarding claim 5, the process by which the bumps are formed does not differentiate the invention from the prior art. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113.
Per claim 6, as modified per claim 1, the second end of the first arm is coupled to the second end of the second arm, such that the first arm, the bottom plate, and the second arm form the space.
Per claim 7, the bumps are a “rough surface.” The process by which they are formed does not differentiate the invention from the prior art. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113.
Per claim 8 the recesses or the surface of the bottom plate is rough. The process by which they are formed does not differentiate the invention from the prior art. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113.
Per claim 9 a plurality of inner walls of the first arm and the second arm have the bumps or the recesses arranged thereon.
Regarding claim 10, the process by which the bumps/recesses are formed does not differentiate the invention from the prior art. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113.
Per claim 16, the Suzuki bottom plate, and the second arm form a space adapted to (i.e., for) accommodating the wire, where a height of the space for accommodating the wire is greater than or equal to an outer diameter of the wire.
Per claim 17, the Suzuki device forms a space for a wire wherein inherently a height of the space for accommodating the wire is less than or equal to twice an outer diameter of the wire. It would have been obvious to adjust the final height or width of the crimped Suzuki device as a matter of engineering design choice.
Per claim 18, the Suzuki device forms a space for a wire wherein inherently a width of the space for accommodating the wire is greater than or equal to an outer diameter of the wire multiplied by a number of wires.
Per claim 19, the Suzuki device forms a space for a wire wherein inherently a height of the bumps or a depth of the recesses is inherently greater than or equal to a thickness of the insulated layer of the wire.
Per claim 20, the Suzuki device forms a space for a wire wherein inherently a height of the bump or a depth of the recess is less than or equal to one fifth of an outer diameter of the wire. It would have been obvious to adjust the final height or width or circumference of the crimped Suzuki device or relative height of the bumps as a matter of engineering design choice.
Per claim 21 as taught in Schroll, a height of the first tenon corresponds to a height of the first groove, and a height of the second tenon corresponds to a height of the second grove such that each tenon is fully received in their respective groove in the height direction.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Schroll in view of Montalbano US 4692122. Regarding claim 11, Suzuki does not disclose that the first arm includes a dovetail joint arranged on the second end of the first arm, and the second arm includes a dovetail groove arranged on the second end of the second arm.
Montalbano discloses a first arm that includes a dovetail joint 16 arranged on the second end of the first arm, and the second arm includes a dovetail groove 17 arranged on the second end of the second arm.
It would have been obvious to include, on the Suzuki device, a dovetail joint arranged on the second end of the first arm, and a dovetail groove arranged on the second end of the second arm, as taught in Montalbano. it would have been obvious to locate the dovetail joint in the center of the arms (labeled SC below, at line A-A) in the longitudinal direction, in the middle of the seam, as taught in Montalbano. The reason would have been to secure the arms together and prevent the arms from separating.
PNG
media_image3.png
498
1012
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding 12, as taught in Montalbano, the dovetail joint is inserted into the dovetail groove and fixedly mates to the dovetail groove. Locating the dovetail joint in the center of the seam would result in mating tenons on both sides of the dovetail joint, the dovetail joint arranged between the first and second tenons along a length direction of the connecting terminal.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Schroll as discussed regarding claim 1 in view of Kawamura et al. US 9391376 (“Kawamura”). Schroll does not disclose that the tenons are welded to the overlapped groove. Kawamura discloses overlapped portions of a terminal being welded together, for example to groove/tenon structure shown at figure 4B. It would have been obvious to weld the overlapping seam portions to each other, including the overlapping tenon/groove portions, as taught in Kawamura. Regarding the particular process/type of welding such as ultrasonic vs laser, the process by which they are formed does not differentiate the invention from the prior art. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 N GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher 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 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