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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: typo on the second line of the claim, specifically "the carrier as sleeve surrounds...". Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 , 18-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US PUB 2002/0002002), hereinafter Okabe, and further in view of Reymond et al (US PAT 4,966,556), hereinafter Reymond.
(Figure 1 of Okabe is provided below for the applicant’s convenience)
PNG
media_image1.png
578
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Okabe discloses a contact device for electrically conductively contacting, in particular flat contact partners (See [11A] in figure 1 of Okabe), with a contact head (See [11] in figure 1 of Okabe), which has two contact elements (See [6a] and [6d] in figure 1 of Okabe), which are mounted on a common carrier (See [4] in figure 1 of Okabe) so as to be longitudinally shiftable in a sliding direction for contacting the contact partner (See [A] in figure 2 of Okabe which translates in an arc like manner which comprises both longitudinal and transverse motion), wherein the contact elements are mounted in such a way that they can be moved towards one another or away from one another at least partially (See [A] in figure 2 of Okabe), characterized in that the contact elements are formed as, in particular rigid, individual parts (See the plurality of each rigid individual element [6] in figure 1 of Okabe) but fails to disclose that each contact element are guided on the carrier by means of at least one slotted guide in such a way that when inserting the contact elements in an insertion direction towards the carrier, the contact elements are moved towards one another or away from one another at least partially. However, Reymond does disclose that each contact element (See [38] in figure 1 of Reymond) are guided on the carrier (See Col. 3, lines 50-54 of Reymond) by means of at least one slotted guide (See each of the slotted guides [68] in figure 1 of Reymond) in such a way that when inserting the contact elements (See [38] in figure 1 of Reymond) in an insertion direction towards the carrier (See [30] in figure 1 of Reymond), the contact elements are moved towards one another or away from one another at least partially (See that when each individual contact element [38] is inserted or removed into/out of the carrier [30] that each element [30] will move toward/away from the other contact elements [38] in figure 1 of Reymond). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Okabe to include the feature disclosed by Reymond because doing so enables replacement of individual contacts in the event of a contact failure as opposed to replacing the entire set of contacts, even those not needing replacement.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that between the contact elements, the contact head has a slider (See slider slot [4B] in figure 1 of Okabe which accommodates [4] in figure 1 of Okabe), which is connected in a positive manner to both contact elements in the sliding direction, in particular in the insertion direction (See that the slider slot [4B] and carrier [4] are connected to any two contact elements [6] in figure 1 of Okabe), and has a stop surface for the contact partner (See the stop surface [14] in figure 1 of Okabe).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the slider is arranged between the contact elements (See that the channels [68] which are disposed between the contact elements [38] act as a slider as shown in figure 1 of Reymond).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 2, characterized in that the slider is mounted on the carrier in a longitudinally shiftable manner, in particular only in a longitudinally shiftable manner (See slider slot [4B] in figure 1 of Okabe which accommodates [4] in figure 1 of Okabe and that this recess extends exclusively longitudinally).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the carrier has two side walls, which are arranged spaced apart and parallel to one another, which, together with the contact elements, in each case form at least one slotted guide (See the two sides [4A] of carrier [4] in figure 1 of Okabe and the slot [4B]).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that each side wall in each case forms two slotted guides with each of the contact elements (See slots [4B] in figure 1 of Okabe).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 11, characterized in that the respective two slotted guides run parallel or at an incline to one another (See the two sides [4A] of carrier [4] in figure 1 of Okabe and the slot [4B]).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the contact elements lie opposite one another, viewed in the direction of movement (See [20a] and [20b] in figure 4D of Reymond respectively).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the contact elements lie next to one another, viewed in the direction of movement (See [20a] and [20b] in figure 4D of Reymond respectively).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 15, characterized in that the contact elements are formed to engage with one another in a comb-like manner (See [20a] and [20b] in figure 4D of Reymond respectively).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the carrier as sleeve surrounds the two contact elements in a ring-shaped manner (See [11C] in figure 1 of Okabe).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the slider (See [4] in figure 1 of Okabe) has at least one holder (See [6E] in figure 1 of Okabe), which is firmly connected to the slider (See [4] in figure 1 of Okabe), and that the contact elements (See [38] in figure 1 of Reymond) are firmly connected to the holder in the sliding direction (See [30] in figure 1 of Reymond), and are shiftably mounted on the holder transversely to the sliding direction, in particular perpendicular to the sliding direction (See that elements [38] are mounted in holes [39] which are perpendicular to the sliding direction which is in the direction parallel to elements [38] in figure 3A of Reymond).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that each contact element has at least one sliding pin (See [11A] in figure 1 of Okabe), which is shiftably mounted in a sliding depression, in particular groove or elongated hole (See [5] in figure 1 of Okabe), of the holder transversely to the sliding direction (See [4] in figure 2 of Okabe in which carrier [4] is positioned at 90 degrees from the starting position [i.e. at 0 degrees]).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that the slider (See slider slot [4B] in figure 1 of Okabe which accommodates [4] in figure 1 of Okabe) has at least one holder (See [6E] in figure 1 of Okabe), which is firmly connected to the slider (See [4] in figure 1 of Okabe), and that the contact elements (See [38] in figure 1 of Reymond) are firmly connected to the holder in the sliding direction (See [30] in figure 1 of Reymond), and that the holder, together with the respective contact element, forms a respective pivot axis (See that [A] denotes motion about a pivot axis as shown in figure 2 of Okabe).
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1, characterized in that each contact element (See [6a]/ [6d] in figure 1 of Okabe) in each case has one or a plurality of electrically conductive contact means (See [11A] in figure 1 of Okabe), in the first case on the side facing the other contact element (See [11C] in figure 1 of Okabe), and in the second case on the side facing away from the other contact element (See the bottom element [4] in figure 1 of Okabe).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okabe and Reymond, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Deylitz et al (US PAT 7,896,710), hereinafter Deylitz.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Okabe and Reymond discloses the contact device according to claim 1 but fails to disclose the contact device being characterized in that the respective guide depression has at least a curvature or at least a change of incline in its course. However, Deylitz does disclose the contact device being characterized in that the respective guide depression has at least a curvature or at least a change of incline in its course (See [232] in figure 9 of Deylitz). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by the combination of Okabe and Reymond to include the feature disclosed by Deylitz because doing so enables a maximization in track length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, 17 and 25 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:
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the respective slotted guide has at least one guide depression in at least one side wall, in particular in each side wall, for each of the contact elements, and in each case at least one guide pin on each of the contact elements, wherein a guide pin of one of the contact elements is in each case shiftably mounted in a guide depression assigned to the contact element, wherein the guide depressions formed in a side wall are aligned so as to run towards one another or away from one another.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements characterized in that the slotted guides for the one contact element are aligned in a first direction and for the other contact element in a second direction, so that the contact elements are either slid towards one another during the insertion through the slotted guides in a first case, in order to externally contact the in particular pin- or web-shaped contact partner between them, or to be slid away from one another in a second case, in order to internally contact an in particular sleeve-shaped contact partner.
With respect to claim 17, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements characterized in that the carrier has only one slotted guide for each of the contact elements, wherein the guide depressions assigned to the different contact elements are aligned so as to run away from one another at an incline in the insertion direction, and wherein the contact elements are pivotably mounted to one another between the carrier and their contact sections, which serve for the direct contacting.
With respect to claim 25, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements characterized in that each contact element in each case has a scratch profile on its free front side for scraping the contact partner, which is contacted frontally, when moving the contact elements towards one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858