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 .
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 17-20 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.
Claim 17 recites, “to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal and the mating terminal.” It is unclear if establishing each of the pluralities of connection points between the terminal and/or mating terminal are differentiated as claimed. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as, “to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal and the mating terminal.”
Claims 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
(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 1-2 and 5-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable over Marsh (US 2017/0062955 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches a high-voltage electrical connector, comprising:
a U-shaped retainer (i.e. 39);
a terminal (i.e. 5) defining a projection (i.e. 7) that extends from the terminal and configured to provide a rigid contact surface of the high-voltage electrical connector;
a spring (i.e. 55) that extends from a wall of the U-shaped retainer and is configured to apply a normal force to couple the projection of the terminal to a mating terminal of a separate mating high-voltage electrical connector when the mating terminal is inserted in the high-voltage electrical connector; and
a contact insert (i.e. 11) having an array of resilient protrusions (i.e. 12), the projection being centrally disposed within the array of resilient protrusions, the contact insert operating in conjunction with the projection to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal and the mating terminal when the mating terminal is inserted in the high-voltage electrical connector.
Regarding claim 2: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the array of resilient protrusions serve as flexible contact surfaces of the high-voltage electrical connector.
Regarding claim 5: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of resilient positive and negative protrusions.
Regarding claim 6: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of cantilevered arms.
Regarding claim 7: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 6, wherein the array of cantilevered arms extend in an insertion direction of the mating terminal.
Regarding claim 8: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of louvres, and wherein the louvres each include a rigid contact surface (i.e. 21) and a flexible contact surface (i.e. 19).
Regarding claim 9: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the projection comprises a first projection (i.e. first 7) and a second projection (i.e. second 7), and wherein the contact insert is arranged between the first and second projections.
Regarding claim 10: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1,
wherein a height of the projection is sized to limit compression of the array of resilient protrusions.
Regarding claim 11: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the high-voltage electrical connector of claim 1, wherein the contact insert is welded to the terminal.
Regarding claim 12: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches a bus bar terminal, comprising:
a planar surface (i.e. 5) configured to be coupled with a mating terminal by a connector comprising a U-shaped retainer with a spring that applies a normal force on the bus bar terminal and the mating terminal, the planar surface having a projection (i.e. 7) extending from the planar surface that serves as a rigid contact surface of the bus bar terminal; and
a contact insert (i.e. 11) secured to the planar surface that includes an array of resilient protrusions (i.e. 12), the projection being centrally disposed within the array of resilient protrusions, the contact insert operating in conjunction with the projection to establish a plurality of connection points between the bus bar terminal and the mating terminal.
Regarding claim 13: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) the bus bar terminal of claim 12, wherein the array of resilient protrusions serve as flexible contact surfaces of the bus bar terminal.
Regarding claim 14: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the bus bar terminal of claim 13, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of resilient positive and negative protrusions.
Regarding claim 15: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the bus bar terminal of claim 14, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of cantilevered arms.
Regarding claim 16: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the bus bar terminal of claim 12, wherein a height of the projection is sized to limit compression of the array of resilient protrusions.
Regarding claim 17: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches a method of assembling an electrical connector, comprising: providing a U-shaped retainer (i.e. 39) with a spring (i.e. 55) that extends from a wall of the U-shaped retainer and applies a normal force to couple a terminal (i.e. 5) to a mating terminal (i.e. 2); and
arranging a contact insert (i.e. 11) between the terminal and the mating terminal, the contact insert having an array of resilient protrusions (i.e. 12), a projection (i.e. 7) extends from the terminal and is centrally disposed within the array of resilient protrusions, the contact insert operates in conjunction with the projection to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal to establish a plurality of connection points between the terminal and the mating terminal.
Regarding claim 18: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the projection serves as a rigid contact surface of the electrical connector, and wherein the array of resilient protrusions serve as flexible contact surfaces of the electrical connector.
Regarding claim 19: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of resilient positive and negative protrusions.
Regarding claim 20: Marsh (Figures 3, 13) teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the array of resilient protrusions is an array of cantilevered arms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 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 3, the prior art of record does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the contact insert defines at least one opening through which the projection extends through the contact insert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the new grounds of rejection, the location of the projections of Marsh is similar to that of Eckel in the previous rejection. Specific to these projections, instant claim 9 appears to further the invention of claim 1 to the embodiment of figure 10 while claim 3 (now objected to) further limits the invention to the embodiment of figure 4. If claims 3 and 9 are both to be interpreted as further limiting, “centrally disposed,” then the placement taught previously by Eckel and now by Marsh teaches the limitation, “centrally disposed.”
Conclusion
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 Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights