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 filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the amendments to the claims address the majority of the issues raised, simultaneously obviating the pending rejection by cancelling all pending claims and rewriting them as new claims 21-40, the new claims introduce new issues under §112. After further search and consideration, Examiner has discovered art which provides a basis for rejecting claims 21, 25, and 34. Appropriate rejections are provided below.
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 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant recites “a width of the pushing protrusion, transition portion arranged” in lines 2-3 of the claim as filed. It is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to refer back to “a transitioning portion” as recited in line 1 of the claim, or instead attempting to recite a separate instance of “a transition portion.” As best understood by Examiner, this limitation is intended to recite “the transitioning portion.” Correction is required.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant recites “the first zone” in line 2 of the claim as filed. There is no such zone recited in the previous claims. It appears that Applicant overlooked this language when redrafting the original claims and that “the first zone” should instead be “the first leg.” 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.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0136852 (“Mito”).
Regarding claim 21, Mito discloses:
A contact (FIGS 1-4), comprising:
a press-fitting portion (34) adapted to be press-fitted (as seen in FIG 2) within a first housing (insulating housing 2) in a press-fitting direction (F);
a pushing protrusion (33c) projecting in a first width direction (33c extends horizontally) normal to the press-fitting direction (F is a vertical direction which is normal to a horizontal direction along which 33c extends), the pushing protrusion projecting beyond the press-fitting portion in the first width direction (para. [0029]; “tip 33c of the projection 33…is formed to be larger than a tip 32c..and the tip 32c…is formed to be larger than a tip 31c of the projection 31”), a pushing surface (33d) is defined on a back side of the pushing protrusion (as shown) and is exposed in the press-fitting direction (as shown); and
a first widened region (13) formed on a side of the pushing protrusion opposite the press- fitting portion (press-fitting portion 31 and region 13 are positioned on opposite sides of pushing protrusion 33c), the first widened region projecting in a second width direction opposite the first width direction (as seen in FIG 3, region 13 extends asymmetrically leftward, whereas tip 33c extends rightward) such that the first widened region is offset in the second width direction relative to a center of the press-fitting portion (as seen in FIG 3, a center point or center line of region 13 is offset relative to a line passing through the center of press-fitting portion 31), the first widened portion having a width greater than a width of the press-fitting portion (as seen in FIG 13, region 13 is wider than every other element of the contact).
Regarding claim 25, Mito discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 21 and further discloses a transitioning portion including a first section (i.e., the unlabeled portion of contact 1 extending between pushing surface 33d and region 13) having a width less than a width of the pushing protrusion (as the claim does not define how the width is measured, Examiner interprets the width of the pushing protrusion 33c to be the distance between opposing tips of projection 33; as seen by FIG 3, the width of the transition portion is less than a width of the pushing protrusion 33c), the transitioning portion arranged between the pushing protrusion and the first widened width region (as shown by FIG 3).
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.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mito in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 34, Applicant merely recites “a connector” having a plurality of contacts as recited by claim 20, further reciting “the plurality of contacts are arranged in a first row and a second row in parallel.”
Mito discloses each and every limitation of claim 20, as detailed above. Mito further states that the insulator may have two or more press-fit terminals disposed therein (para. [0025]). Thus, the sole difference between the disclose of Mito and instant claim 34 is the instant provision of the plurality of contacts being arranged in a first row and a second row, the first and second row being arranged parallel to each other.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that it is well-known and extremely common to provide a plurality of terminals configured as a plurality of rows1. The particular arrangement of contacts within a connector housing is, ultimately, a matter of design choice dependent upon the intended application for the connector, the space provided for the connector within the electronic device it communicates with, and the positioning of wires or traces to which the connector communicates with. Thus, the sole difference between Mito and the instant claim clearly amounts to the rearrangement of parts disclosed by Mito into parallel rows. The courts have previously held that “the particular placement of a contact” in an electric device is “an obvious matter of design choice.” See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975).
As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Mito such that the two or more terminals are provided in parallel rows for the purpose of making the generic connector of Mito compliant with applications that require placement of terminals in parallel rows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24, 26-33, and 35-40 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 22, Mito does not disclose the widened region being bent to define a shape that is convex relative to the back side of the pushing protrusion. There is no apparent reason or motivation to modify the contacts of Mito such that the widened portion is bent; instead, one of ordinary skill would likely bend the portion of contact 1 that extends below the widened region 13. As such, claim 22 would distinguish over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including the subject matter of base claim 21. Claims 23-24 depend from claim 22 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26, Mito does not disclose “a first retaining portion” that is adapted to be retained by a second housing that is discrete from the first housing. Mito does not appear to contemplate a second housing at all, let alone a portion of the terminal therein being configured to be retained by a second housing. As such, claim 26 would distinguish over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including the subject matter of base claim 21. Claims 27-33 depend from claim 26 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 35, Mito does not disclose a second housing the retains both the contacts and the first housing, collectively, while supporting the first housing through the contacts. Mito does not appear to contemplate a second housing at all, let alone providing such a second housing that would contain the terminals and the first housing while supporting the first housing through the terminals. As such, claim 35 would distinguish over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including the subject matter of base claim 34. Claims 36-40 depend from claim 35 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited, but not discussed or mentioned above, generally relate to connector terminals that are provided with barbs or protrusions designed to facilitate a press-fit engagement between the terminals and the housing in which they are fixed.
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 THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,708,605.
Prosecution Insights