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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but the amendment required the new reference show below.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17: Line 2 recites “the base portion”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note, it appears this claim should depend on claim 16.
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 1-3, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroyer (US 2012/0214346), in view of Lehmann (EP 0 838 878 A1, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1: Leroyer discloses a piston assembly for a spring-loaded contact (Fig. 5), including:
- a piston body (52) to be received into a housing (51) of the spring-loaded contact and having a first end (55) to be connected directly or indirectly with an external part (62),
- a clip (54) to mate with a conductive portion (57) of the spring-loaded contact, wherein the piston body has a through hole (interior of 54 and 531).
Leroyer does not explicitly disclose the through hole extending longitudinally through the piston body and is configured to receive the clip.
However, Lehmann discloses a through hole (at 11A) extending longitudinally through the piston body (11) and is configured to receive the clip (14, as the clip is interior to 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip of Leroyer to be in the through hole, as disclosed by Lehmann, in order to ensure adequate pressure on the clip (last sentence, first partial paragraph of page 3 of the translation).
Regarding claim 2: Leroyer discloses the piston body has a length representing 65% to 100% of the length of the piston assembly (about 75% in Fig. 5, as stated above, this claim is indefinite).
Regarding claim 3: Leroyer discloses the first end has a contacting surface (55) to contact the external part directly (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10: Leroyer discloses the clip defines a through cavity (allowing for 571 to be inserted).
Regarding claim 13: Leroyer discloses the conductive portion includes a pin portion (571) for mating with the clip.
Regarding claim 14: Leroyer discloses the pin portion and the piston assembly are configured so that the pin portion does not protrude out of the piston assembly (in that the pin portion is internal to 54).
Regarding claim 15: Leroyer discloses the conductive portion includes a base portion (572) for connecting another external part (70), an electronic or electric circuit (70).
Regarding claim 16: Leroyer discloses a base portion has a base groove (573) to accommodate at least part of a coil spring (56) of the spring-loaded contact.
Claims 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroyer and Lehmann, further in view of Preci-Dip SA (EP 3 764 476).
Regarding claim 11: Leroyer discloses the piston body, but does not explicitly disclose the piston body includes a piston groove to accommodate at least part of a coil spring of the spring-loaded contact.
However, Preci-Dip discloses a piston groove (43) to accommodate at least part of a coil spring (60) of the spring-loaded contact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piston body of Leroyer to include the piston groove in order to better support the spring.
Regarding claim 17: Leroyer discloses a coil spring but does not explicitly disclose the coil spring located between the base portion and the piston body.
However, Preci-Dip discloses the coil spring (60) located between the base portion (20) and the piston body (40, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sping of Leroyer to be between the base portion and the piston body in order to exert a force on the contact.
Regarding claim 18: Leroyer discloses the housing, but does not explicitly disclose the housing includes an external bulge.
However. Preci-Dip discloses the housing (10) includes an external bulge (at 20, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Leroyer to include the bulge in order to accommodate larger components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the spring-loaded contact of the following claims, specifically comprising:
Regarding claim 4: a cap at least partially received in the through holes and closing the first end, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Regarding claim 5: the piston body has a second end opposite the first end and wherein the clip protrudes partially from the second end, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Regarding claim 6 the clip is press-fitted in the through hole, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Regarding claims 7-9: the clip includes a base end, opposite to the clipping portion, wherein the base end is located in the through hole on the side of the first end of the piston body, in the context of the other components in the claim.
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834