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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Cancellation
The cancellation of claim 6 has been made of record.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boily et al. US 20040149685 A1 and Sachs et al. US 20180097295 A1, further in view of JP 5872844 B2 (JP844).
In reference to claim 1, Boily teaches contact element (shown in figure 5) comprising:
an electrically conductive carrier body (24 fig. 5) with at least one contact surface for contacting at least one electrical conductor (38, 38’ fig. 5); coating (40, 40’, 28, 28’) made of electrically conductive solid particles distributed over said at least one contact surface.
However Boily does not teach spray coating made of electrically conductive solid particles distributed over said at least one contact surface.
Sachs teaches of spray (see [0018], lines 1-3) coating made of electrically conductive solid particles distributed over said at least one contact surface.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
Further, Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles have a core including a copper alloy and a coating including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof.
JP844 teaches wherein said solid particles have a core (11; fig. 2) including a copper alloy and a coating (12; fig. 2) including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof (see page 4, lines 12-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP844 as an alternative combination of materials for the solid particles to arrive at the results of claim 1. There is low reactivity between the material of the core 11 and coating 12 (see page 4, lines 17-21). The core and coating still form the solid particles; therefore, new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 2, Boily teaches contact element according to claim 1, wherein said solid particles (28, 28’) protrude from an oxide layer (42, 42’) which may be present on said carrier body (24) and at the same time contact a non-oxidized region (i.e. the region where 28, 28’ contact 24 and the region where 28, 28’ contact 38, 38’) of said carrier body and of said conductor to be contacted.
In reference to claim 3, Boily teaches contact element according to claim 1, wherein the average particle diameter of said solid particles is larger than the average surface roughness of said at least one contact surface and of said possible oxide layer thickness on said carrier material/component to be connected (see fig. 5, where 28, 28’ is notably larger than the average surface roughness of said at least one contact surface and of said possible oxide layer thickness on said carrier material/component to be connected.).
In reference to claim 4, Boily teaches contact element according to claim 1, wherein said solid particles are configured to be edged (see fig. 5), spattered, and/or spherical.
In reference to claim 5, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles have a greater hardness than said carrier body.
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. Changing the material of the solid particles so that they have a greater hardness than said carrier body is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the solid particles to arrive at the results of claim 5. The solid particles still penetrate the oxide films to make electrical contact with the contacts, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 7, Boily teaches contact element according to claim 1, wherein said solid particles are distributed uniformly or aperiodically over said at least one contact surface and/or cover less than 10% of the surface of said at least one contact surface.
In reference to claim 8, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein said spray coating contains a material with an affinity for oxygen.
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. Changing the material so that the spray coating contains a material with an affinity for oxygen is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the spray coating to arrive at the results of claim 8. The spray coating still adheres to the electrical contact surface, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 9, Boily teaches contact element according to claim 1, wherein said carrier body (24) comprises two contact surfaces pointing away from one another for contacting one electrical conductor each (see fig. 5).
In reference to claim 10, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach said solid particles consist of one or more of the elements Ti, W, Ru, Cr, W, Fe, Ag, Co, Pt, Ni, Mg or a Cu alloy and are optionally coated.
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. Changing the material of the solid particles so that the solid particles consist of one or more of the elements Ti, W, Ru, Cr, W, Fe, Ag, Co, Pt, Ni, Mg or a Cu alloy and are optionally coated is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the solid particles to arrive at the result of claim 10. The solid particles still pierce the oxide layer and establish electrical connection with the contacts, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 11, Boily teaches Connection assembly (shown in figure 5) comprising: a contact element (22’; fig. 5) including an electrically conductive carrier body (24) with at least one contact surface for contacting at least one electrical conductor (38) and a coating (40, 40’) made of electrically conductive solid particles (28, 28’) distributed over said at least one contact surface; and at least one electrical conductor (38), wherein said contact element is pressed against said at least one conductor and wherein said solid particles of said coating penetrate at least in part into the material of said at least one conductor.
However Boily does not teach spray coating made of electrically conductive solid particles
distributed over said at least one contact surface.
Sachs teaches of spray (see [0018], lines 1-3]) coating made of electrically conductive solid particles distributed over said at least one contact surface.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
Further, Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles have a core including a copper alloy and a coating including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof.
JP844 teaches wherein said solid particles have a core (11; fig. 2) including a copper alloy and a coating (12; fig. 2) including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof (see page 4, lines 12-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP844 as an alternative combination of materials for the solid particles to arrive at the results of claim 1. There is low reactivity between the material of the core 11 and coating 12 (see page 4, lines 17-21). The core and coating still form the solid particles; therefore, new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 12, Boily teaches wherein said solid particles of said coating have such a high strength that said oxide layer present on said at least one conductor is shattered.
However Boily does not teach of a spray coating.
Sachs teaches of a spray coating (see [0018], lines 1-3). Using the teachings of Sachs to arrive at the results of claim 12 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
In reference to claim 13, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein the spray coating is applied using a spray medium containing a carrier gas and the solid particles.
Sachs teaches the spray coating is applied using a spray medium containing a carrier gas and the solid particles (see [0018], lines 1-2 teaches of depositing the particles by gas dynamic cold spraying).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
In reference to claim 14, Boily teaches connection assembly according to claim 11, wherein said solid particles (28, 28’) protrude from an oxide layer (42. 42. 2’) which may be present on said carrier body (24) and at the same time contact a non-oxidized region (i.e. the region where 28, 28’ contact 24 and the region where 28, 28’ contact 38, 38’) of said carrier body and of said conductor to be contacted.
In reference to claim 15, Boily teaches connection assembly according to claim 11, wherein an average particle diameter of said solid particles is larger than an average surface roughness of said at least one contact surface and of said possible oxide layer thickness on said carrier material/component to be connected (see fig. 5, where 28, 28’ is notably larger than the average surface roughness of said at least one contact surface and of said possible oxide layer thickness on said carrier material/component to be connected.).
In reference to claim 16, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles have a greater hardness than said carrier body.
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. Changing the material of the solid particles so that they have a greater hardness than said carrier body is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the solid particles to arrive at the results of claim 16. The solid particles still penetrate the oxide films to make electrical contact with the contacts, therefore new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 17, Boily teaches providing an electrically conductive carrier body with at least one contact surface, electrically conductive solid particles onto said at least one contact surface.
However Boily does not teach spraying electrically conductive solid particles.
Sachs teaches spraying electrically conductive solid particles (see [0018], lines 1-3). Using the teachings of Sachs to modify Boily to arrive at the results of claim 17 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
Further, Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles have a core including a copper alloy and a coating including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof.
JP844 teaches wherein said solid particles have a core (11; fig. 2) including a copper alloy and a coating (12; fig. 2) including one or more of nickel, silver, or an alloy thereof (see page 4, lines 12-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP844 as an alternative combination of materials for the solid particles to arrive at the results of claim 1. There is low reactivity between the material of the core 11 and coating 12 (see page 4, lines 17-21). The core and coating still form the solid particles; therefore, new results are not produced.
In reference to claim 18, Boily teaches method according to claim 13, wherein a spattered (for the purpose of examination, “spattered” understood as something that is scattered over a surface), edged (see fig. 5, where 28, 28’ have edges. Further, 28, 28’ are scattered over the surface of 22’), and/or spherical powder is used as starting material for said electrically conductive solid particles.
In reference to claim 19, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein the spraying process is carried out using a cold gas spraying method or a plasma spraying method.
Sachs teaches the spraying process is carried out using a cold gas spraying method (see [0018], lines 1-2 teaches of depositing the particles by gas dynamic cold spraying).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sachs, as taught by Sachs [0018], lines 7-9, in order to improve how deep the particles penetrate into the contact area and how well they adhere thereto.
In reference to claim 20, Boily substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However Boily does not teach wherein said solid particles consist of one or more of the elements Ti, W, Ru, Cr, W, Fe, Ag, Co, Pt, Ni, Mg or a Cu alloy and are optionally coated.
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. Changing the material of the solid particles so that the solid particles consist of one or more of the elements Ti, W, Ru, Cr, W, Fe, Ag, Co, Pt, Ni, Mg or a Cu alloy and are optionally coated is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the solid particles to arrive at the result of claim 20. The solid particles still pierce the oxide layer and establish electrical connection with the contacts, therefore new results are not produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 TRAVIS SLOAN CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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.
/TRAVIS S CHAMBERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights