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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17, and 19 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Duisburg [DE 623406 C] submitted by the applicant on the IDS dated 05/04/2026. Duisburg discloses a lay-in slot having a first portion and a second portion as claimed. See the full rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites "base bore", should read "the base bore". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 recites "inserting", should read "inserted". Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al [KR 102166720 B1] in view of Duisburg [DE 623406 C].
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a connector system to provide electrical grounding connections, the connector system (see Fig 1-2) comprising:
a base (100) that includes a base body (100), a base bore (121) extending into the base body (100) along a base axis that defines an axial direction, a lay-in slot (122) that opens at a sidewall of the base body (100) and forms a base conductor channel (122a) that intersects the base bore (121); the lay-in slot (122) has a first portion extending into the sidewall of the base body (100) substantially perpendicular to the base axis,
wherein an inner end of the lay-in slot (122) defines a seat portion of the base conductor channel (122a) that receives a conductor (2) in the assembled configuration. and
a plug (200) that includes a first end (211) with a first diameter sized to be received in the base bore (121), and a second end (230), axially opposite the first end (211);
the base conductor channel (122a) receiving a longitudinal portion of the conductor (2) into the lay-in slot (122) at the sidewall so that the conductor (2) extends through the base conductor channel (122a) to intersect the base bore (121); and
in an assembled configuration, the first end (211) of the plug (200) extending into the base bore (121), with the plug (200) aligned with the conductor (2) along the base axis to deform (transmits a fixing force to the conductor 2) the conductor (2) in the axial direction.
Kim does not explicitly disclose a second portion extending from the first portion substantially parallel to the base axis and along the base bore, an inner end of the second portion of the lay-in slot defines a seat portion that receives the conductor.
However, Duisburg discloses a lay in slot including a first portion (see annotated Figure 4) extending into the sidewall of the base body substantially perpendicular to the base axis and a second portion (see annotated figure 4) extending from the first portion substantially parallel to the base axis and along the base bore, wherein an inner end of the second portion (see annotated Figure 4) of the lay-in slot defines a seat portion (see annotated Figure 4) of the base conductor channel that receives the conductor in the assembled configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim as suggested by Duisburg to provide a second portion extending from the first portion substantially parallel to the base axis and along the base bore, an inner end of the second portion of the lay-in slot defines a seat portion that receives the conductor. Using the lay-in slot of Duisburg allows for easy assembly as the conductor is able to laterally slide into the slot and be secured.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Duisburg further discloses the first portion (see annotated Figure 4) of the lay-in slot has a first width and the second portion (see annotated Figure 4) of the lay-in slot has a second width that is the same as the first width (see annotated Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Duisburg further discloses the inner end of the second portion (see annotated Figure 4) of the lay-in slot is axially aligned with the base axis.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 4, Kim further discloses the base bore (121) defines a crimping area that extends axially past the seat portion of the base conductor channel (122a) to receive the axial deformation of the conductor (2).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 5, Kim does not explicitly disclose the crimping area includes a conical surface that extends axially at an inner end of the base bore.
However, Kim further discloses a conical surface that extends axially at an inner end of the second base bore (110, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Duisburg as suggested by Kim to provide the crimping area includes a conical surface that extends axially at an inner end of the base bore since applicants have presented no explanation that these particular configurations of the inner end of the base bore are significant or anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing crimping surfaces for a conductor. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 5, Kim does not explicitly disclose an angle of the conical surface of the base bore measured relative to the base axis is in a range between about 55 degrees and about 70 degrees, inclusive.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make an angle of the conical surface of the base bore measured relative to the base axis is in a range between about 55 degrees and about 70 degrees, inclusive, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the routine experimentation and optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the angle of the conical surface in order to get a better fit/crimp.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Kim further discloses a grounding rod (1) having a first end coupled to the base (100) at one end and a second end insertable into a ground surface (see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 9, Kim further discloses the base bore (121) is a first base bore extending axially into the base body (100) at a first axial end; and wherein the base (100) further includes a second base bore (110) extending axially into the base body (100) at a second axial end opposite the first axial end, the second base bore (110) receiving the first end of the grounding rod (1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 9, Kim further discloses the second base bore (110) is a tapered bore (see Fig 4), and the first base bore (121) is not a tapered bore.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciampini [US 5503575 A] in view of Duisburg [DE 623406 C].
Regarding Claim 17, Ciampini discloses a method of electrically grounding one or more conductors (34), the method comprising: inserting a longitudinal portion of a conductor (34) into a lay-in slot (32) that opens at a sidewall of a base body (22) of a connector system (20); sliding the longitudinal portion of the conductor (34) along a base conductor channel (32) formed by the lay-in slot (32), so that the conductor (34) intersects a first base bore (30), the first base bore (30) extending in an axial direction along a base axis into the base body (22), from a first end (26) of the base body (22); and inserting a first end (38) of a plug (36) of the connector system (20) into the base bore (30) at the first end (26) of the base body (22); and hammering a second end (40) of the plug (36), opposite the first end (38, see Column 2, lines 6-15), to place the connector system (20) in an assembled configuration in which a first diameter of the plug (36) is secured within the first base bore (30) and of the first end (38) of the plug (36) is aligned with the conductor (34) along the base axis to deform the conductor (34) in the axial direction. Ciampini does not explicitly disclose the longitudinal portion of the conductor defining an axial direction, and the longitudinal portion of the conductor being inserted into the lay-in slot in a lateral direction relative to the axial direction, sliding the longitudinal portion of the conductor laterally along a base conductor channel formed by the lay-in slot.
However, Duisburg discloses the longitudinal portion of the conductor (see figure 1) defining an axial direction, and the longitudinal portion of the conductor being inserted into the lay-in slot in a lateral direction relative to the axial direction, sliding the longitudinal portion of the conductor laterally along a base conductor channel formed by the lay-in slot (see Figure 1 and annotated Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim as suggested by Duisburg to provide the longitudinal portion of the conductor defining an axial direction, and the longitudinal portion of the conductor being inserted into the lay-in slot in a lateral direction relative to the axial direction, sliding the longitudinal portion of the conductor laterally along a base conductor channel formed by the lay-in slot.. Using the lay-in slot of Duisburg allows for easy assembly as the conductor is able to laterally slide into the slot and be secured in a simple manner.
Regarding Claim 18, Ciampini and Duisburg disclose all the limitations of claim 17, Ciampini further discloses before hammering the second end (40) of the plug (36), inserting an end of a grounding rod (44) into a second base bore (42) of the base body (22) that extends into the base body (22) at a second end (28) of the base body (22), opposite the first end (26).
Regarding Claim 19, Ciampini discloses a connector system (20, Fig 1) to provide electrical grounding connections, the connector system (20) comprising: a base (22) that includes a base body (22), a first base bore (30) extending into the base body (22) along a base axis at a first axial end (26) of the base (22), a second base bore (42) extending axially into the base body (22) at a second axial end (28) opposite the first axial end (26), and a base conductor channel (32) that is formed by a lay-in slot (32) and intersects the base bore (30); a plug (36) that includes a first end (38) sized to be received in the base bore (30), and a second end (40), axially opposite the first end (38); and a grounding rod (44) with a first end received with the second base bore (42) and a second end insertable into a ground surface (see Fig 4); the lay-in slot (32) including an opening at a sidewall of the base body (22) to receive a longitudinal portion of a conductor (34) into the base conductor channel (32); and in an assembled configuration, the longitudinal portion of the conductor (34) being seated on the seat portion ( where the slot 32 intersects the bore 30) and the first end of the plug (36) extending within the base bore (30) to deform the conductor (34) axially past the seat portion [see Column 2, lines 6-16]. Ciampini does not explicitly disclose a first portion extending from the opening transverse to the base axis and a second portion extending from the first portion along the base bore to a seat portion at an inner end of the lay-in slot.
However, Duisburg discloses a first portion (see annotated Figure 4) extending from the opening transverse to the base axis and a second portion (see annotated Figure 4) extending from the first portion along the base bore to a seat portion (see annotated Figure 4) at an inner end of the lay-in slot.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim as suggested by Duisburg to provide a first portion extending from the opening transverse to the base axis and a second portion extending from the first portion along the base bore to a seat portion at an inner end of the lay-in slot. Using the lay-in slot of Duisburg allows for easy assembly as the conductor is able to laterally slide into the slot and be secured in a simple manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record do not explicitly disclose the second end of the plug has a second diameter sized to be received within the cap bore, along with all other limitations of Claims 11 and 1.
Claims 12-16 are objected to as they are dependent on Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record do not explicitly disclose the second end of the plug is sized to be received within the cap bore, along with all other limitations of Claims 20 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights