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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form (i.e. not claim form) and generally limited to a single paragraph (i.e. not a single sentence duplicating the first claim) on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the lower surface” and “the two opposite sides” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 5, “its open end” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 6, “the side plate” and “the lower surface” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 7, “the other two opposite sides” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 8, “the junction” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 9 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.
The scope of claims 4 and 9 are indefinite because there is an inconsistency within the claims. Claims 1 and 2, from which they depend, initially indicates that the subcombination, a terminal fixing structure (10), is being claimed. However, later claims 4 and 9 contain positive limitations directed toward the terminal (14), suggesting that applicant intends to claim the combination of the terminal fixing structure and the terminal. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claims are intended to be drawn to and the language of the claim must be amended to be consistent with this intent.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0361364) in view of Schmit et al. (US 9,520,658).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a connecting terminal fixing structure, comprising: a conductive seat (122), a clamping member (124a), and a nut (124b); the conductive seat consisting of two side plates (122b) and a top plate (122a) that are integrally formed, the top plate being connected to the top of the side plate on each side so that the conductive seat forms an n-shape (Figs. 3-7), and the top plate having a perforation (H1); the clamping member having an opening (top of H2) and being located on the lower surface of the top plate; and the nut having a threaded hole; wherein, the perforation, the opening, and the threaded hole are positioned correspondingly to form a through hole.
Lee discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the snap-fitting part. Schmit teaches the use of a clamping member extending at least one snap-fitting part (74) from each of the two opposite sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a clamping member, as taught by Schmit, in order to positively prevent rotation of the nut.
Regarding claim 2, Schmit teaches the snap-fitting part being an elastic piece (74) positioned to correspond to at least one notch of a terminal (intended use), and the elastic piece is clamped and connected to the notch (intended use).
Regarding claim 3, Schmit teaches the elastic piece has a protruding limiter (80), and the protruding limiter protrudes into the notch (intended use).
Regarding claim 4, Schmit teaches the surface of the notch is an inclined surface (intended use, provides little patentable weight as to the structure of the elastic piece).
Regarding claim 5, Schmit teaches the elastic piece having a guiding surface (78) located at its open end.
Regarding claim 7, Schmit teaches at least one projection part (at 70) extending from each of the other two opposite sides of the clamping member (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, as modified by Schmit the projection part is fixed against the junction of the top plate and the side plate.
Regarding claim 9, Schmit teaches a terminal (14) provided above the top plate, and a flat part of the terminal has a connection hole (26) corresponding to the position of the through hole (42).
Regarding claim 10, both Lee and Schmit disclose the clamping member and the nut being integrally formed (i.e. connected to each other).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Schmit, and further in view of Wallo (US 3,609,654).
Regarding claim 6, Wallo discloses the side plate having at least one inclined part (35) near the top plate (14), the inclined part is inclined toward the opposite side plate, and the upper end of the inclined part is held against the lower surface of the clamping member (33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use an inclined part, as taught by Wallo, in order to limit backing of the clamping member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833