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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-13 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0058441).
Regarding claim 1, Hirakawa teaches an electrically conductive contact pin (20), comprising: a body portion (28) formed by stacking a plurality of metal layers (40 and 42) including a first metal (40) and a second metal (42); and a tip portion (30) located at an end of the body portion (as shown in fig. 1), and in contact with the plurality of metal layers (40 and 42) constituting the body portion (28) at joint interfaces between the tip portion (30) and the body portion (28) (as shown in fig. 1), wherein the first metal (40) and the second metal (42) are made of different metals (as disclosed in para. 0075), and the second metal (42) is made of a metal (gold) having higher electrical conductivity than the first metal (40) (as disclosed in para. 0076), wherein the joint interface is a vertical plane (the left to right direction on which layer 36 extends, as shown in fig. 1-2, it’s considered the vertical plane) perpendicular to a planar (planar face of 28, as seen in fig. 1, but cannot be viewed on fig. 2) of the plurality of metal layers (40 and 42), the vertical plane being a plane in which the body portion and the tip portion face each other with surfaces (surfaces of 36, 40 and 42 that make contact, as shown in fig. 1), and wherein, at the joint interface which is the vertical plane where the body portion (28) and the tip portion (30) face each other with surfaces, an outer side surface (same surface of 36 that makes contact with 40 and 42, as shown in fig. 1) of the tip portion (30) is in contact with all the plurality of metal layers (40 and 42) constituting the body portion (28).
Regarding claim 2, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Hirakawa et al. teaches wherein the first metal (40) forms an outer surface of the body portion (28), and the second metal (42) is located inside the body portion (28) (as shown in fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Hirakawa et al. teaches wherein the tip portion (30) includes: a first portion (36) in contact with the plurality of metal layers (40 and 42) constituting the body portion (28) at the joint interfaces between the tip portion (30) and the body portion (28); and a second portion (38) formed at the first portion (36), having a lower height than the first portion (in the vertical plane as established in the rejection of claim 1 above), and coming into contact with an object (as disclosed in para. 0082).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0058441) in view of Smalley (US Pat. 11,262,383).
Regarding claim 3, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Hirakawa et al. teaches wherein the second metal (42) is made of a metal selected from the group consisting of copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), and an alloy of these metals (as disclosed in para. 0075).
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the first metal is made of a metal selected from the group consisting of rhodium (Rh), platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), and an alloy of these metals; the group consisting of a palladium-cobalt (PdCo) alloy and a palladium-nickel (PdNi) alloy; or the group consisting of a nickel-phosphor (NiPh) alloy, a nickel-manganese (NiMn), a nickel-cobalt (NiCo), and a nickel-tungsten (NiW) alloy. However, Smalley wherein the first metal is made of a metal selected from the group consisting of rhodium (Rd), platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), and an alloy of these metals; the group consisting of a palladium-cobalt (PdCo) alloy and a palladium-nickel (PdNi) alloy; or the group consisting of a nickel-phosphor (NiPh) alloy, a nickel- manganese (NiMn), a nickel-cobalt (NiCo), and a nickel- tungsten (NiW) alloy (as disclosed in col. 10, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first metal made of a metal selected from the group consisting of rhodium (Rh), platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), and an alloy of these metals; the group consisting of a palladium-cobalt (PdCo) alloy and a palladium-nickel (PdNi) alloy; or the group consisting of a nickel-phosphor (NiPh) alloy, a nickel-manganese (NiMn), a nickel-cobalt (NiCo), and a nickel-tungsten (NiW) alloy as taught by Smalley with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to use a highly resilient and toughness metal material.
Regarding claim 5, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the tip portion is embedded in a recess portion formed in the body portion so that three surfaces of the tip portion are in contact with the body portion. However, Smalley teaches wherein the tip portion (G2) is embedded in a recess portion formed in the body portion (G1 and G3) so that three surfaces of the tip portion (G2) are in contact with the body portion (as shown in fig. 7C).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the tip portion embedded in a recess portion formed in the body portion so that three surfaces of the tip portion are in contact with the body portion as taught by Smalley with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to securely protect the tip portion from external forces that might cause damage.
Regarding claim 7, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the tip portion is at least partially embedded in the body portion so that at least three surfaces thereof are exposed. However, Smalley teaches wherein the tip portion (G2) is at least partially embedded in the body portion (G1 and G3) so that at least three surfaces thereof are exposed (as shown in fig. 7C).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the tip portion at least partially embedded in the body portion so that at least three surfaces thereof are exposed as taught by Smalley with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to securely protect the tip portion from external forces that might cause damage.
Regarding claim 10, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Hirakawa et al. teaches wherein the tip portion (30) includes: a first portion (36) in contact with the plurality of metal layers (40 and 42) constituting the body portion (28) at the joint interfaces between the tip portion (30) and the body portion (28); and a second portion (38) formed at the first portion (36) and coming into contact with an object (as disclosed in para. 0082).
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach a first portion at least partially embedded in the body portion. However, Smalley teaches a first portion (portion embedded between the two G1 layers and making contact with G3) at least partially embedded in the body portion (as shown in fig. 7C).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a first portion at least partially embedded in the body portion as taught by Smalley with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to securely protect the tip portion from external forces that might cause damage.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0058441) in view of CRIPPA et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0059612).
Regarding claim 6, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the tip portion is embedded in the body portion so that three surfaces thereof are exposed, and the tip portion does not protrude from the end of the body portion. However, CRIPPA et al. teaches wherein the tip portion (20) is embedded (partially) in the body portion so that three surfaces thereof are exposed (as shown in fig. 4A, three surfaces of 20 do not make contact with the body portion), and the tip portion (20) does not protrude from the end of the body portion (as shown in fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the tip portion embedded in the body portion so that three surfaces thereof are exposed, and the tip portion does not protrude from the end of the body portion as taught by CRIPPA et al. with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to provide better protection and durability to the tip portion.
Regarding claim 9, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the tip portion includes: a first portion in contact with the plurality of metal layers constituting the body portion at the joint interfaces between the tip portion and the body portion; and a second portion formed at the first portion, having the same height as, but a narrower width than the first portion, and coming into contact with an object. However, CRIPPA et al. teaches wherein the tip portion (10A) includes: a first portion (shown in fig. 2A as 21) in contact with the plurality of metal layers constituting the body portion (10C) at the joint interfaces between the tip portion and the body portion; and a second portion (narrower portion extended from 21 and ending with 22) formed at the first portion, having the same height as, but a narrower width than the first portion (as shown in fig. 2A), and coming into contact with an object (as disclosed in col. 1, lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the tip portion include: a first portion in contact with the plurality of metal layers constituting the body portion at the joint interfaces between the tip portion and the body portion; and a second portion formed at the first portion, having the same height as, but a narrower width than the first portion, and coming into contact with an object as taught by CRIPPA et al. with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to reduce the area of contact of the contact pin.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0058441) in view of SONG (KR 20080105604).
Regarding claim 11, Hirakawa et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hirakawa et al. fails to specifically teach wherein at each joint interface, the body portion is provided with a first engaging portion, and the tip portion is provided with a second engaging portion coupled to the first engaging portion to form a coupling reinforcement structure. However, SONG teaches wherein at each joint interface, the body portion (24) is provided with a first engaging portion (22), and the tip portion (28) is provided with a second engaging portion (25a) coupled to the first engaging portion to form a coupling reinforcement structure (as shown in fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have at each joint interface, the body portion provided with a first engaging portion, and the tip portion provided with a second engaging portion coupled to the first engaging portion to form a coupling reinforcement structure as taught by SONG with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to securely and accurately attach the tip portion to the body portion.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hirakawa et al. and SONG disclose the limitations of claim 11, in addition, Song teaches wherein the first engaging portion (22) is provided at the body portion (24) along a height direction of the joint interface, and the second engaging portion (22) is provided at the tip portion (28) along the height direction of the joint interface (as shown in fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hirakawa et al. and SONG teaches the limitations of claim 11, but fails to specifically teach wherein the first engaging portion is provided at the body portion along a perimeter direction of the joint interface, and the second engaging portion is provided at the tip portion along the perimeter direction of the joint interface. However, SONG in a different embodiment (as shown in fig. 3b) teaches wherein the first engaging portion (22a) is provided at the body portion (24) along a perimeter direction of the joint interface, and the second engaging (25a) is provided at the tip portion (28) along the perimeter direction of the joint interface (as shown in fig. 3b).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first engaging portion provided at the body portion along a perimeter direction of the joint interface, and the second engaging portion provided at the tip portion along the perimeter direction of the joint interface as taught by SONG with the invention of Hirakawa et al. in order to securely and accurately attach the tip portion to the body portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858