DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on November 3, 2023.
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 10, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 6: "against a least a fourth sidewall" should be --against at least a fourth sidewall--;
Claim 15, line 10: "against a least a fourth sidewall" should be --against at least a fourth sidewall--;
Claim 17, line 3: "a bay datum" should be --a first bay datum-- in order to stay consistent with claims 6 and 13.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12-13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kane (US-7492600-B2).
With respect to Claim 1:
Kane discloses an electronic system 2, comprising:
a connector insert 6, comprising:
a set of electrical pins 8 extending through a substrate 40 (Figs. 5-6); and
an insert alignment structure 68 extending from a surface of the substrate (Figs. 6); and
a housing 4 comprising:
a bay to receive a wire harness (Fig. 2);
a slot 26 within the bay to receive the connector insert 6 (Fig. 2); and
a housing alignment structure 28 adjacent to the slot 26 (Fig. 2), the housing alignment structure 28:
interfaces with the insert alignment structure 68 to secure the connector insert 6 (col. 4, lines 12-20); and
presses centrally against the connector insert 6 to align the set of electrical pins 8 to the bay (col. 4, lines 12-20).
With respect to Claim 2:
Kane discloses the electronic system of claim 1.
Kane further discloses wherein the housing alignment structure 28 and the insert alignment structure 68 center the connector insert 6 within the slot 26 (col. 4, lines 12-20).
With respect to Claim 3:
Kane discloses the electronic system of claim 1.
Kane further discloses wherein the housing alignment structure 28 and the insert alignment structure 68 align the connector insert 6 within the slot 26 in two orthogonal directions in a two-dimensional plane (col. 4, lines 12-20; Fig. 2: the pair of semicircular shapes of 28 aligns 68 both in a longitudinal direction along 14 and a longitudinal direction along 18, the two directions being orthogonal to each other).
With respect to Claim 12:
Kane discloses an electronic system 2, comprising:
a connector insert 6 comprising a set of electrical pins 8 extending through a substrate 40 (Figs. 5-6);
a housing 4 comprising:
a bay to receive a wire harness (Fig. 2); and
a slot 26 within the bay to receive the connector insert 6 (Fig. 2); and
a connection system comprising:
an insert alignment structure 68 extending from a surface of the substrate 40 (Fig. 6); and
a housing alignment structure 28 adjacent to the slot 26 configured to interface with the insert alignment structure 68, secure the connector insert 6, and press centrally against the connector insert 6 to align the set of electrical pins 8 to the bay (col. 4, lines 12-20).
With respect to Claim 13:
Kane discloses the electronic system of claim 12.
Kane further discloses wherein: the housing alignment structure 28 and the insert alignment structure 68 align: a first insert datum with a first bay datum in a first direction (col. 4, lines 12-20; Figs. 2 and 6: 28 and 68 align the connector insert with the housing along a line spanning a longitudinal direction along 18); and a second insert datum with a second bay datum in a second direction (col. 4, lines 12-20; Figs. 2 and 6: 28 and 68 align the connector insert with the housing along a line spanning a longitudinal direction along 14).
With respect to Claim 16:
Kane discloses a method, comprising:
providing a housing 4 comprising:
a bay to receive a wire harness (Fig. 2); and
a slot 26 within the bay to receive a connector insert 6 (Fig. 2);
providing the connector insert 6 comprising a set of electrical pins 8 extending through opposite surfaces of a substrate 40 (Figs. 5-6); and
securing the connector insert 6 within the slot 26 via an insert alignment structure 68 and a housing alignment structure 28 (col. 4, lines 12-20), the housing alignment structure 28 centrally pressing against the connector insert 6 to align the set of electrical pins 8 to the bay (col. 4, lines 12-20).
With respect to Claim 17:
Kane discloses the method of claim 16.
Kane further discloses wherein securing the connector insert 6 within the slot 26 via the insert alignment structure 68 and the housing alignment structure 28, comprises: aligning a first insert datum with a first bay datum in a first direction (col. 4, lines 12-20; Figs. 2 and 6: 28 and 68 align the connector insert with the housing along a line spanning a longitudinal direction along 18); and aligning a second insert datum with a second bay datum in a second direction (col. 4, lines 12-20; Figs. 2 and 6: 28 and 68 align the connector insert with the housing along a line spanning a longitudinal direction along 14).
With respect to Claim 20:
Kane discloses the method of claim 16.
Kane further comprising inserting the connector insert 6 through an opposite surface of the housing 4 from which the bay extends (Fig. 8).
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.
Claims 4, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane (US-7492600-B2) in view of Thomas, et al. (EP-3622586-B1).
With respect to Claim 4:
Kane discloses the electronic system of claim 1.
Kane does not explicitly disclose wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises a set of compliant retainer clips, the set of compliant retainer clips protruding from a surface of the substrate through which the set of electrical pins extends; and the housing alignment structure comprises a set of accepting holes that correspond to and receive the set of compliant retainer clips.
However, Thomas teaches a connector module 3 comprising alignment and retention technology, wherein the connector module 3 is retained in a modular frame 1 via holes 14 of the frame which correspond to and receive compliant retainer clips 36 (Figs. 8-9b).
Thus, Kane and Thomas each disclose insert connector retention technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the compliant retainer clips and accepting holes of Thomas could be combined with the insert alignment structure of Kane because it would provide an alternative alignment structure which may both lock and unlock. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 7:
Kane in view of Thomas discloses the electronic system of claim 4.
Kane further discloses wherein the compliant retainer clips protrude from the surface of the substrate 40 that faces a surface of the housing 4 from which the bay extends (Figs. 2, 6 and 8).
With respect to Claim 18:
Kane discloses the method of claim 16.
Kane does not explicitly disclose wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises a set of compliant retainer clips protruding from at least one of the opposite surfaces; the housing alignment structure comprises a set of accepting holes configured to receive the set of compliant retainer clips; and securing the connector insert within the slot comprises snapping the compliant retainer clips into respective accepting holes.
However, Thomas teaches a connector module 3 comprising alignment and retention technology, wherein the connector module 3 is retained in a modular frame 1 via holes 14 of the frame which correspond to and receive compliant retainer clips 36 (Figs. 8-9b), and securing the connector module 3 within the modular frame 1 comprises snapping the retainer clips 36 into respective holes 14 (Figs. 9a-9b).
Thus, Kane and Thomas each disclose insert connector retention technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the compliant retainer clips and accepting holes of Thomas could be combined with the insert alignment structure of Kane because it would provide an alternative alignment structure which may both lock and unlock. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Claims 5-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane (US-7492600-B2) in view of Thomas, et al. (EP-3622586-B1), further in view of Snider (US-6606252-B1).
With respect to Claim 5:
Kane in view of Thomas discloses the electronic system of claim 4.
Thomas further discloses wherein the set of compliant retainer clips comprises: a first pair of compliant retainer clips 36 disposed on opposite sides (Fig. 8).
Kane in view of Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of compliant retainer clips comprises: a second pair of compliant retainer clips orthogonal to the first pair and disposed on opposite sides of the surface.
However, this describes a structure that comprises a second pair of the same alignment structure, which is well known in the art as shown by Snider. (Fig. 1: 102 and 106 each comprise two pairs of retention structures, wherein a first pair is placed on opposite sides to each other, and a second pair is placed on opposite sides to each other, wherein the second pair is orthogonal to the first pair.)
Thus, Kane and Snider each disclose retention structures. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the insert alignment structure and housing alignment structure of Kane could be repeated on orthogonal sides because it would add redundancy to the design and further prevent unwanted disconnections. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 6:
Kane in view of Thomas and Snider discloses the electronic system of claim 5.
Kane further discloses wherein: the connector insert 6 further comprises a first insert datum defined by a centerline between the first pair of compliant retainer clips (Fig. 6: if aligning posts 68 are replaced by retainer clips such as those in Thomas, there would be a centerline between the clips) and a second insert datum defined by a centerline between the second pair of compliant retainer clips (Fig. 6: if another pair of clips are placed on the sides orthogonal to the sides containing 68, such as what is shown in Fig. 1 of Snider, there would be a centerline between the new pair of clips); and the bay further comprises a first bay datum defined by a centerline between accepting holes associated with the first pair of compliant retainer clips and a second bay datum defined by a centerline between accepting holes associated with the second pair of compliant retainer clips (the same argument above applies to the accepting holes); and the compliant retainer clips and the accepting holes align: the first insert datum with the first bay datum in a first direction; and the second insert datum with the second bay datum in a second direction.
With respect to Claim 14:
Kane discloses the electronic system of claim 12.
Kane does not explicitly disclose wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises: a first pair of compliant retainer clips disposed on opposite sides of the surface of the substrate through which the set of electrical pins extends; and a second pair of compliant retainer clips orthogonal to the first pair and disposed on opposite sides of the surface; and the housing alignment structure comprises a set of accepting holes that correspond to and receive the first pair of compliant retainer clips and the second pair of compliant retainer clips.
However, Thomas teaches a connector module 3 comprising alignment and retention technology, wherein the connector module 3 is retained in a modular frame 1 via holes 14 of the frame which correspond to and receive compliant retainer clips 36 (Figs. 8-9b).
Thus, Kane and Thomas each disclose insert connector retention technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the compliant retainer clips and accepting holes of Thomas could be combined with the insert alignment structure of Kane because it would provide an alternative alignment structure which may both lock and unlock. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Kane in view of Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the insert alignment structure comprises a second pair of retainer clips disposed on opposite sides of the surface of the substrate and orthogonal to the first pair of retainer clips.
However, this describes a structure that comprises a second pair of the same alignment structure, which is well known in the art as shown by Snider. (Fig. 1: 102 and 106 each comprise two pairs of retention structures, wherein a first pair is placed on opposite sides to each other, and a second pair is placed on opposite sides to each other, wherein the second pair is orthogonal to the first pair.)
Thus, Kane and Snider each disclose retention structures. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the insert alignment structure and housing alignment structure of Kane could be repeated on orthogonal sides because it would add redundancy to the design and further prevent unwanted disconnections. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein: the housing alignment structure comprises a set of compliant retainer clips comprising an arm extending from an interior sidewall of the bay and a compliant arm extending parallel to the interior sidewall; and the insert alignment structure comprises a set of accepting holes that correspond to and receive the set of compliant retainer clips,” as recited in claim 8, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 8. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 8, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 9, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises a first set of datum pads extending from a first sidewall of the substrate; and the housing alignment structure comprises a first spring on an interior surface of the slot, the first spring applies a force against at least a second sidewall of the substrate that is opposite the first sidewall,” as recited in claim 9, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 9. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 9, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claims 10-11 are dependent on claim 9 and would therefore be allowable.
Regarding Claim 15, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises: a first set of datum pads extending from a first sidewall of the substrate; and a second set of datum pads extending from a third sidewall of the substrate, the third sidewall being adjacent and orthogonal to the first sidewall; and the housing alignment structure comprises: a first spring on an interior surface of the slot, the first spring applies a force against at least a second sidewall of the substrate that is opposite the first sidewall; and a second spring on the interior surface of the slot, the second spring applies a force against at least a fourth sidewall of the substrate that is opposite the third sidewall,” as recited in claim 15, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 15. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 15, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 12 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 19, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein: the insert alignment structure comprises a first set of datum pads extending from a first sidewall of the substrate; the housing alignment structure comprises a first spring on an interior surface of the slot; and securing the connector insert within the slot comprises exerting, via the first spring, a force against a second sidewall of the substrate that is opposite the first sidewall to align the set of electrical pins to the bay,” as recited in claim 19, in conjunction with all the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 19. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 19, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 16 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 EST..
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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights