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 § 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 24, 26-30, 32, 35, 36, 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera Keito et al. (EP 3236533) hereafter Kotera, in view of Sueyoshi (US 2008/0207015), and further in view of Schwettmann et al. (US 8,075,322) hereafter Schwettmann.
Regarding claim 24, Kotera, discloses a plug device 3 (fig. 2) for attaching electronic components 5, 6 on a circuit board 1, the plug device 3 comprising a base portion 3a which is present in a base plane, at least two side panels 3b which are attached to corresponding edge regions of the base portion and protrude from the base plane, wherein at, at least one side panel 3b, pins 3c for pressing in a circuit board are provided, an attachment element 3d which is formed at the base portion, and a coupling element 3f which is attached to the attachment element 3d, wherein the electronic component is couplable to the coupling element (see fig. 3), and the attachment element 3d is attached exclusively to the base portion.
However, Kotera, does not disclose pins are press-in pins.
Sueyoshi, discloses pin is press-fit pin 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pins are of press-fit type of pins as taught by Sueyoshi in order to have easer of insertion and making electrical connection without using soldering process.
Thus, Kotera as modified by Sueyoshi discloses all the claimed limitations except for the attachment element is configured as a press-in pin and is pressed in a receiving opening of the base portion.
Schwettmann, discloses an attachment element 20 is press fit pin 21, and is pressed fit in recess 31 of positioning frame 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an attachment element is press fit pin and is pressed in a receiving opening of the base portion as taught by Schwettmann in order to have ease of assembly without any physical tool.
Regarding claim 26, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi), wherein the side panels protrude from the base plane, such that they at least partially enclose the attachment element 3d.
Regarding claim 27, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi), the coupling element 3f is releasably attached to the attachment element 3d.
Regarding claim 28, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), the coupling element is integrally formed with the attachment element (upon assembly).
Regarding claim 29, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), the coupling element 3f forms a threaded pin.
Regarding claim 30, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi, and Schwettmann), discloses the attachment element 3f is formed as a pin.
Regarding claim 32, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses the attachment element 3f is configured as a threaded nut (3d is being female screw, which is having threads, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 34, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses all the claimed limitations except for the attachment element is glued, welded, or soldered to the base portion.
The examiner takes Official Notice that the used of method of gluing, welding and soldering are well-known. Further, their appropriate use for audio test purposes is well known., therefore it would have been obvious to use such method for attaching the attachment element to the base portion. It is also to be noted that, “attachment element is glued, welded, or soldered to the base portion” is a product-by-process claim and even though such claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, as in the present situation, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 35, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses the coupling element 3f protrudes through a receiving opening in the base portion.
Regarding claim 36, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses the base portion and the side panels are made of a common sheet metal and the side panels are bent relatively to the base portion.
Regarding claim 38, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses the side panels comprise an angle of 90 degree relative to the base portion.
Regarding claim 39, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses the side panels respectively comprise different angles relative to the base portion.
Regarding claim 40, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses at a side edge of the side panel, an attachment pin or an attachment opening for coupling with a corresponding attachment of a further side panel is formed.
Regarding claim 41, Kotera, fig. 6 (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses an electronic arrangement comprising a circuit board 1, a plug device 3 according to claim 24, an electronic component which is attached to the coupling element, wherein the side panels 3b are pressed in the circuit board 1 by the corresponding press-in pins 3c.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Kotera, fig. 6 (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses all the structural limitations as discussed above, except for the method steps for the manufacturing a plug device such as providing, attaching, bending.
It would have been obvious follow the steps such as providing and attaching the parts together in order to assemble and use a plug device for it intended use.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotera Keito and Sueyoshi and Schwettmann as applied to claim 24, further in view of Kallee et al. (DE 102018101432) Kallee.
Regarding claim 37, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi and Schwettmann), discloses all the claimed limitations except for at edge regions of the base portion, four or more side panels are attached, at the base portion, two or more attachment elements are attached, which are at least partially enclosed by the at least two side panels and at, at least one of the side panels, a further coupling element is attached.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have four or more side panels are attached to the edge region of the base portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to better stability.
Thus, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi, Schwettmann) discloses all the claimed limitations except for at the base portion, two or more attachment elements are attached, which are at least partially enclosed by the at least two side panels, and at, at least one of the side panels, a further coupling element is attached .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two or more attachment elements are attached, which are at least partially enclosed by the at least two side panels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Thus, Kotera (as modified by Sueyoshi, Schwettmann) ) discloses all the claimed limitations except for at, at least one of the side panels, a further coupling element is attached.
Kallee, discloses at, at least one of the side panels 4a, 4b, a further coupling element 5 is attached.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at, at least one of the side panels, a further coupling element is attached as taught by Kallee in order to assembly all panel together to form plug device without using nut and bolt or any fastener.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is 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 31, the prior art of record does not discloses a plug device comprising the pin forms a central region with the fixing groove, wherein the fixing groove is delimited by an upper edge and a lower edge, wherein the coupling element is configured as an elastically deformable clamping plug which is attached in the fixing groove, wherein the clamping plug comprises elastic clamping elements which are outwardly curved, such that a clamping connection in a socket of an electronic component is establishable as required by this claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the claim subject matter of claims 25 and 33 was rejected as discussed in previous office action mailed on 10,24/2025 is incorporated in independent claim 24. Examiner has revised the rejection as stated above. The examiner has also discussed and suggested to incorporate the objected claim subject matter of claim 31 into independent claim 24.
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 HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 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, 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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights