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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 121A and 123, as shown in figure 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “riveting” should read --crimping--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --PLUG PRONG WITH WIRE CONNECTING PORTION, A TO-BE-CLAMPED SECTION, AND A CONTACT SECTION--.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “riveting” used throughout the Specification should read --crimping--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 lines 2 and 3, the word “riveting” should read --crimping--, since there is no bolt or bolt-hole for riveting the wire to the plug prong, but crimping wings are clearly present. Claims 2-7 include the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (2024/0088595).
With regard to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches, as shown in figures 1-3B and taught in paragraph 16: “A plug prong 2 comprising a contact section 20 configured to be inserted into a socket (mating device taught in paragraph 16), a riveting section 23 configured for wire 11 connection via riveting, and a to-be-clamped section 22 located between the contact section 20 and the riveting section 23 and configured to be clamped by an inner frame 4, wherein the to-be-clamped section includes a neck (where 22B is located in figure 1) having a notch 22B which is open in a lateral side (top side of 20 in figure 1), wherein the notch 22B includes a recessed groove (portion of 22B visible in figure 1) formed on a lower edge of the notch 22B, and wherein the recessed groove includes a bottom edge (lower-left most edge of 22B in figure 1) located outside of an outermost face 42 of the inner frame 4 facing the contact section 20”.
With regard to claim 4, Sugiyama teaches: “The plug prong as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Sugiyama also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3B: “wherein the bottom edge of the recessed groove is an arcuate recession”.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (2024/0088595).
With regard to claim 5, Sugiyama teaches: “The plug prong as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Sugiyama does not teach: “wherein the bottom edge of the recessed groove includes three rectilinear sides forming a recession”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the recessed groove so the bottom edge includes three rectilinear sides forming a recession in order to engage differently-shaped portions of the housing (Sugiyama, paragraph 51). Also, 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).
With regard to claim 6, Sugiyama teaches: “The plug prong as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Sugiyama does not teach: “wherein the bottom edge of the recessed groove includes two slant sides extending downward and toward each other”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the recessed groove so the bottom edge includes two slant sides extending downward and toward each other in order to engage differently-shaped portions of the housing (Sugiyama, paragraph 51). Also, 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).
With regard to claim 7, Sugiyama teaches: “The plug prong as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Sugiyama does not teach: “wherein the recessed groove includes a slant side, an arcuate side opposite to the slant side, and a recessed arcuate bottom side interconnected between the slant side and the arcuate side”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the recessed groove to include a slant side, an arcuate side opposite to the slant side, and a recessed arcuate bottom side interconnected between the slant side and the arcuate side in order to engage differently-shaped portions of the housing (Sugiyama, paragraph 51). Also, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831