DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 12/19/2023.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 22215091.4, filed on 12/20/2022.
Specification
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: CONNECTOR ARRANGEMENT WITH RELIABLE MATING DETECTION.
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 1 – 20 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.
Claim 1, line 11, recites “comprising two resilient contact arms, wherein the contact arms are both…”. It is unclear whether “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” recited in the same line, or a completely different embodiment. This issue is also found in lines 15 and 20 of claim 1. The Examiner notes that later in line 17, “the two resilient contact arms” are recited, which is another reason why it is unclear if “the contact arms” refer to the same “resilient contact arms”. The Examiner suggests to amend the claim to clarify if “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” that were previously recited. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the contact arms” as being the same “resilient contact arms” that are recited in claim 1, line 11.
Claim 1, lines 19 – 20, recite “the contact portions either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms springs back toward the initial position”. This portion of the claim is indefinite because it recites two mutually exclusive outcomes (i.e. connection or disconnection of contact portions) upon the occurrence of a single event, which is when the contact arm springs back toward the initial position, without specifying the conditions under which each outcome occurs. As such, it is unclear whether the claimed invention requires the contact portions to be connected, disconnected, or capable of either state under unspecified circumstances. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as encompassing both alternatives, such that the claim reads on embodiments in which the contact portions become disconnected upon the recited spring-back movement.
Claim 2, lines 1 – 3, recite “wherein at least the unobstructed one of the contact arms is preloaded towards the initial position by being transferred into the translocated position”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the recited “preloading” is achieved and when such preloading occurs. In particular, the phrase “preloaded towards the initial position by being transferred into the translocated position” is ambiguous as to whether the preloading results from the act of transferring the contact arm, or whether the preloading is a condition that exists upon reaching the translocated position. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as intending that the movement of the contact arm results in a biasing force that urges the contact arm towards the initial position, such as by elastic deformation of the contact arm.
Claim 4, lines 3 – 4, recite “one of the two resilient contact arms being one of a metal strip, a solid wire, and a flat wire”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how a “resilient contact arm” corresponds to the recited alternatives of “a metal strip”, “a solid wire”, and “a flat wire”. In particular, “a resilient contact arm” is recited as a structural component, whereas “metal strip”, “solid wire”, and “flat wire” represent distinct types of geometries, which are not clearly defined as mutually exclusive with a contact arm. The claim does not clarify whether the entire contact arm is formed from one of these materials, or if the contact arm merely includes or comprises one of these forms. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as requiring that the at least one resilient contact arm is entirely formed from one of the required structures.
Claim 15, line 11, recites “comprising two resilient contact arms, wherein the contact arms are both…”. It is unclear whether “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” recited in the same line, or a completely different embodiment. This issue is also found in lines 15 and 20 of claim 15. The Examiner notes that later in line 17, “the two resilient contact arms” are recited, which is another reason why it is unclear if “the contact arms” refer to the same “resilient contact arms”. The Examiner suggests to amend the claim to clarify if “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” that were previously recited. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the contact arms” as being the same “resilient contact arms” that are recited in claim 15, line 11.
Claim 15, lines 19 – 20, recite “the contact portions either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms springs back toward the initial position”. This portion of the claim is indefinite because it recites two mutually exclusive outcomes (i.e. connection or disconnection of contact portions) upon the occurrence of a single event, which is when the contact arm springs back toward the initial position, without specifying the conditions under which each outcome occurs. As such, it is unclear whether the claimed invention requires the contact portions to be connected, disconnected, or capable of either state under unspecified circumstances. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as encompassing both alternatives, such that the claim reads on embodiments in which the contact portions become disconnected upon the recited spring-back movement.
Claim 18, line 11, recites “comprising two resilient contact arms, wherein the contact arms are both…”. It is unclear whether “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” recited in the same line, or a completely different embodiment. This issue is also found in lines 15 and 20 of claim 18. The Examiner notes that later in line 17, “the two resilient contact arms” are recited, which is another reason why it is unclear if “the contact arms” refer to the same “resilient contact arms”. The Examiner suggests to amend the claim to clarify if “the contact arms” are the same “resilient contact arms” that were previously recited. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the contact arms” as being the same “resilient contact arms” that are recited in claim 18, line 11.
Claim 18, lines 19 – 20, recite “the contact portions either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms springs back toward the initial position”. This portion of the claim is indefinite because it recites two mutually exclusive outcomes (i.e. connection or disconnection of contact portions) upon the occurrence of a single event, which is when the contact arm springs back toward the initial position, without specifying the conditions under which each outcome occurs. As such, it is unclear whether the claimed invention requires the contact portions to be connected, disconnected, or capable of either state under unspecified circumstances. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as encompassing both alternatives, such that the claim reads on embodiments in which the contact portions become disconnected upon the recited spring-back movement.
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) 1 – 3, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (US 5417586).
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) a connector arrangement (figure 1) having a connector (4) and a corresponding mating connector (12), the connector (4) comprising a housing (4 is a housing) and a first locking feature (3) for latching with a corresponding second locking feature (11) of the mating connector (12), the connector (4) further comprising a mating detection device (6, 9; 43) for detecting a locked state (see figures 4 and 6) of the first locking feature (3) with the second locking feature (11),
wherein the first locking feature (3) comprises a resilient member (see resilient arm 3 in figure 7), which is deflected by the second locking feature (11) during a mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and which is released when the mating process is complete (see figures 4 and 6), establishing the locked state,
wherein the mating detection device (6, 9; 43) comprises an electric circuit (6, 161, 162; see column 2, lines 1 – 27 and column 6, lines 3 – 34) with a spring contact (9, 43) for opening and closing the electric circuit (column 6, lines 3 – 34), the spring contact (9, 43) comprising two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49), wherein the contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) are both transferred from an initial position (figure 2) to a translocated position (figures 3 and 9) by the resilient member (3) when the resilient member is deflected during the mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and
wherein in the locked state the second locking feature (12) obstructs only one of the contact arms (see figure 15; 7) from returning into the initial position (see figure 2) when the resilient member (3) is released,
wherein the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 44a, 49) have respective contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) overlapping in a direction from the initial position (see figure 2) to the translocated position (see figures 3 or 9), the contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms (44) springs back towards the initial position (i.e. see gap “L” in figure 8; column 6, lines 18 – 34).
Regarding claim 2, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least the unobstructed one of the contact arms (44) is preloaded towards the initial position (i.e. position before mating) by being transferred into the translocated position (see figures 3 or 9).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a protrusion (47) is arranged on the obstructed one of the contact arms (44), the protrusion (47) extending in the initial position (i.e. position before fully mating) into a space occupied by the second locking feature (11) in the locked state (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 7, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) has a leg portion (10 in figure 11) attached to the resilient member (3).
Regarding claim 13, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the obstructed one of the resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) extends in the initial position (see figure 3) into a space occupied by the second locking feature (12) in the locked state (see figure 2).
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586).
Regarding claim 4, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) are made of metal (i.e. 7, 8; 44, 49 are springs which inherently made of metal due to their conductivity), in particular of spring steel, at least one of the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) being one of a metal strip (43 is a metal strip), a solid wire and a flat wire.
Although Endo does not expressly disclose that the contact arms are made of spring steel specifically, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the spring element of Endo from spring steel, as spring steel is a well-known and commonly used material for springs due to its high yield strength, elasticity, and ability to return to its original shape after deformation. The selection of spring steel from among known metal materials suitable for springs would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice to achieve predictable results, such as improved resilience and durability of the spring element.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Barlerin (WO 2008142490).
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein the electric circuit (i.e. circuit formed by 11) is disposed on a circuit board (7), the two resilient contact arms (10) having respective base portions (11a) connected to the circuit board (7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Regarding claim 6, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 5.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board is arranged on the housing.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein the circuit board (7) is arranged on the housing (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein the circuit board is arranged on the housing, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Regarding claim 10, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 5.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board is arranged on the base plate.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein the circuit board (7) is arranged on the base plate (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein the circuit board is arranged on the base plate, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Regarding claim 11, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms (11) is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it (i.e. see page 4, lines 20 – 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Regarding claim 12, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 11, wherein the two resilient contact arms (7) are formed in one piece (see figure 11), wherein the obstructed one of the resilient contact arms (7) has a contact bridge (61) formed thereon and the unobstructed one of the resilient contact arms (7) has two separated conductive leads (21) connected to the electric circuit (16 is a male tab, making a circuit in that portion as seen in figure 10 via 59).
Claim(s) 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Shinozaki (US 6126496).
Regarding claim 8, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 1.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the two resilient contact arms are arranged on a base plate, the base plate being attached to the resilient member.
Shinozaki teaches (figure 5) a connector wherein the two resilient contact arms (15) are arranged on a base plate (14), the base plate (14) being attached to the resilient member (see figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Shinozaki to provide wherein the two resilient contact arms are arranged on a base plate, the base plate being attached to the resilient member, to improve the connector’s reliability by improving the detecting function of the fitting detector connector.
Regarding claim 9, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 8.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein a protrusion is arranged on the base plate extending in the initial position into a space occupied by the second locking feature in the locked state.
Shinozaki teaches (figure 5) a connector wherein a protrusion (16b) is arranged on the base plate (14) extending in the initial position (i.e. position in which 15c is not biased against 15b as seen in figure 4) into a space occupied by the second locking feature (see feature that 16d is contacting in figure 4) in the locked state (i.e. state seen in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Shinozaki to provide wherein a protrusion is arranged on the base plate extending in the initial position into a space occupied by the second locking feature in the locked state, to improve the connector’s reliability by improving the detecting function of the fitting detector connector.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Barlerin (WO 2008142490) and further in view of Shinozaki (US 6126496).
Regarding claim 14, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 11.
But Endo and Barlerin do not explicitly disclose wherein the two resilient contact arms and a base plate are formed in one piece.
Shinozaki teaches (figure 5) a connector wherein the two resilient contact arms (15) and a base plate (14) are formed in one piece (i.e. see figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Barlerin with the connector as disclosed by Shinozaki to provide wherein the two resilient contact arms and a base plate are formed in one piece, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Naito (US 7648377).
Regarding claim 15, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) a connector arrangement (figure 1) having a connector (4) and a corresponding mating connector (12), the connector (4) comprising a housing (4 is a housing) and a first locking feature (3) for latching with a corresponding second locking feature (11) of the mating connector (12), the connector (4) further comprising a mating detection device (6, 9; 43) for detecting a locked state (see figures 4 and 6) of the first locking feature (3) with the second locking feature (11),
wherein the first locking feature (3) comprises a resilient member (see resilient arm 3 in figure 7), which is deflected by the second locking feature (11) during a mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and which is released when the mating process is complete (see figures 4 and 6), establishing the locked state,
wherein the mating detection device (6, 9; 43) comprises an electric circuit (6, 161, 162; see column 2, lines 1 – 27 and column 6, lines 3 – 34) with a spring contact (9, 43) for opening and closing the electric circuit (column 6, lines 3 – 34), the spring contact (9, 43) comprising two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49), wherein the contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) are both transferred from an initial position (figure 2) to a translocated position (figures 3 and 9) by the resilient member (3) when the resilient member is deflected during the mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and
wherein in the locked state the second locking feature (12) obstructs only one of the contact arms (see figure 4; 7) from returning into the initial position (see figure 2) when the resilient member (3) is released,
wherein the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) have respective contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) overlapping in a direction from the initial position (see figure 2)to the translocated position (see figures 3 or 9), the contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms (44) springs back towards the initial position (i.e. see gap “L” in figure 8; column 6, lines 18 – 34).
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board.
Naito teaches (figures 3 – 4, 6) a connector wherein the electric circuit (i.e. electric circuit formed by 5 and 6 that is disposed on 10, where 10 is mounted in a circuit board; column 3, lines 49 – 63) is disposed on a circuit board (column 3, lines 49 – 63), the two resilient contact arms (5, 6) having respective base portions (6c) connected to the circuit board (column 3, lines 49 – 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Naito to provide wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board, to improve the connector’s reliability (i.e. see summary of invention in Naito).
Claim(s) 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Naito (US 7648377) and further in view of Barlerin (WO 2008142490).
Regarding claim 16, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 15.
But Endo and Naito do not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board is arranged on the housing.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein the circuit board (7) is arranged on the housing (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Naito with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein the circuit board is arranged on the housing, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Regarding claim 17, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 15.
But Endo and Naito do not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms (11) is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it (i.e. see page 4, lines 20 – 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Naito with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein at least one of the two resilient contact arms is made of plastic with metal conductive leads disposed on it, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Claim(s) 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Shinozaki (US 6126496).
Regarding claim 18, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) a connector arrangement (figure 1) having a connector (4) and a corresponding mating connector (12), the connector (4) comprising a housing (4 is a housing) and a first locking feature (3) for latching with a corresponding second locking feature (11) of the mating connector (12), the connector (4) further comprising a mating detection device (6, 9; 43) for detecting a locked state (see figures 4 and 6) of the first locking feature (3) with the second locking feature (11),
wherein the first locking feature (3) comprises a resilient member (see resilient arm 3 in figure 7), which is deflected by the second locking feature (11) during a mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and which is released when the mating process is complete (see figures 4 and 6), establishing the locked state,
wherein the mating detection device (6, 9; 43) comprises an electric circuit (6, 161, 162; see column 2, lines 1 – 27 and column 6, lines 3 – 34) with a spring contact (9, 43) for opening and closing the electric circuit (column 6, lines 3 – 34), the spring contact (9, 43) comprising two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49), wherein the contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) are both transferred from an initial position (figure 2) to a translocated position (figures 3 and 9)by the resilient member (3) when the resilient member is deflected during the mating process (see figures 3 and 9), and
wherein in the locked state the second locking feature (12) obstructs only one of the contact arms (see figure 4; 7) from returning into the initial position (see figure 2) when the resilient member (3) is released,
wherein the two resilient contact arms (7, 8; 44, 49) have respective contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) overlapping in a direction from the initial position (see figure 2) to the translocated position (see figures 3 or 9), the contact portions (see figure 8, 47 and 46 are overlapping) either getting connected or disconnected when the unobstructed one of the contact arms (44) springs back towards the initial position (i.e. see gap “L” in figure 8; column 6, lines 18 – 34).
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein the two resilient contact arms are arranged on a base plate, the base plate being attached to the resilient member.
Shinozaki teaches (figure 5) a connector wherein the two resilient contact arms (15) are arranged on a base plate (14), the base plate (14) being attached to the resilient member (see figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Shinozaki to provide wherein the two resilient contact arms are arranged on a base plate, the base plate being attached to the resilient member, to improve the connector’s reliability by improving the detecting function of the fitting detector connector.
Regarding claim 19, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claim 18.
But Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein a protrusion is arranged on the base plate extending in the initial position into a space occupied by the second locking feature in the locked state.
Shinozaki teaches (figure 5) a connector wherein a protrusion (16b) is arranged on the base plate (14) extending in the initial position (i.e. position in which 15c is not biased against 15b as seen in figure 4) into a space occupied by the second locking feature (see feature that 16d is contacting in figure 4) in the locked state (i.e. state seen in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo with the connector as disclosed by Shinozaki to provide wherein a protrusion is arranged on the base plate extending in the initial position into a space occupied by the second locking feature in the locked state, to improve the connector’s reliability by improving the detecting function of the fitting detector connector.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5417586) in view of Shinozaki (US 6126496) and further in view of Barlerin (WO 2008142490).
Regarding claim 20, Endo teaches (figures 1 – 16A) the connector arrangement according to claims 19.
But Endo and Shinozaki do not explicitly disclose wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board, wherein the circuit board is arranged on the base plate.
Barlerin teaches (figures 1a – 7) a connector wherein the electric circuit (i.e. circuit formed by 11) is disposed on a circuit board (7), the two resilient contact arms (10) having respective base portions (11a) connected to the circuit board (7), wherein the circuit board (7) is arranged on the base plate (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and Shinozaki with the connector as disclosed by Barlerin to provide wherein the electric circuit is disposed on a circuit board, the two resilient contact arms having respective base portions connected to the circuit board, wherein the circuit board is arranged on the base plate, to improve the simplicity and reliability of the mating detection device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights