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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 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
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, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2005/015692 (“Advantest”). References to text are made with respect to the accompanying machine translation of the foreign-language document.
Regarding claim 1, Advantest discloses:
An electrical contact (see FIG 6) comprising:
a circuit board mounting section (66), a housing securing section (62) and a mating section (64, 68), the mating section comprising:
a raised contact portion (68) having a texture contact interface (FIGS 9a, 9b) with a plurality of raised contact areas (72-80);
voids separating the plurality of raised contact areas (as seen in 9b, there is empty space, i.e., “voids,” between adjacent contacts 72-80);
wherein the textured contact interface provides more than one point of contact when the the [sic] plurality of raise contact areas of the textured contact interface are positioned in electrical engagement with a mating electrical contact (para. [0058]; [0070] of the machine translation; here, Advantest discloses contact with projection 72, followed by contact with projection 74; while the contact is not disclosed as simultaneous, the reference also does not disclose 72 being removed from contact; thus, the reference may be reasonably interpreted as disclosing simultaneous contact of projections 72 and 74, i.e., “more than one point of contact” as presently recited).
Regarding claim 3, Advantest discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the electrical contact having a singular beam, the texture contact interface being positioned on the single beam (see FIG 6).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Advantest discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the raised contact areas extending at an angle of between 0 and 90 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis on the electrical contact (as shown by FIG 6) and further discloses the voids extending at the same angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the electrical contact (as the voids are located between the raised areas, and thus are parallel to the raised areas, they inherently extend at the same angle).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites an alternative embodiment of the electrical contact recited in claim 1, the alternative embodiment further reciting “a contact beam with a radiused portion, the radiused portion being offset from a plant of the housing securing section” and a textured contact interface “provided on the radiused portion,” wherein the textured contact interface comprises the elements recited by claim 1.
As shown above, Advantest discloses the limitations of claim 1. Advantest further discloses a contact beam (64, including radiused portion 68) with a radiused portion (68), the radiused portion being offset from a plane of the housing securing section (as seen in FIG 6), the textured contact interface (see FIG 9a) being provided on the radiused portion (as shown in FIG 9a).
Examiner therefore finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 12.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 16, Applicant merely recites the same subject matter recited by claims 3, 7, and 8. As detailed above, Advantest discloses the limitations of claims 3, 7, and 8. Examiner therefore finds that the rejection of claims 3, 7, and 8 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matters of claims 13, 15, and 16, respectively.
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) 4-6, 11, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advantest as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0162655 (“Hirose”).
Regarding claim 4, Advantest discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose each electrical contact comprising multiple contact beams, each of the multiple contact beams having a respective textured contact interface.
Hirose discloses an electrical contact comprising a plurality of contact beams (see FIG 7A, where a contact portion of the terminal, 10b, is split into two distinct contact beams, separated by slit portions 10c. Slit portions 10c are provided “for dropping the dispersion C of metal nanoparticles B…directly onto the points of terminal contact 10b in order to coat” the contact terminals and the mating contacts (para. [0044]).
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Advantest by splitting the radiused portion (68) of Advantest into two discrete contact beams, each contact beam comprising its own textured contact interface formed by the raised contact areas, for the purposes of enabling application of a conductive lubricant directly to the contact terminals and the mating contact, as is taught by Hirose.
Regarding claim 5, Advantest in view of Hirose (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 4 and further discloses each of the multiple contact beams having the respective textured contact interface positioned on a radiused portion (inherent result of the combination made in the rejection of claim 4; Hirose teaches splitting of the radiused contact portion into discrete beams separated by a slit; applying this teaching to Advantest would result in splitting of radiused portion into discrete contact beams, and each contact beam having a respective radiused portion; since the radiused portion of Advantest carries the textured interface, each of the discrete contact beams would also carry a respective textured interface).
Regarding claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 4 and further discloses each of the multiple contact beams having a plurality of textured contact interfaces of the at least one textured contact interface positioned on radiused portions of each of the multiple contact beams (inherent; all that is required of the claim is the provision of multiple textured contact interfaces on the same contact beam; Advantest discloses 5 raised contact areas, which may be arbitrary divided into “a plurality of textured contact interfaces,” such as raised contacts 72, 74, and 78 forming “a first textured contact interface” and raised contacts 76 and 80 forming “a second textured contact interface;” thus, when evaluated as a combination of references, modified as proposed in the rejection of claim 4, each contact beam of the electrical contact would have “a plurality of textured contact interfaces…positioned on radiused portions of each of the multiple contact beams” as presently recited).
Regarding claim 11, Advantest discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a lubricant being provided in the voids, wherein the lubricant can migrate from the voids to the raised contact areas when the textured contact interface is positioned in electrical engagement with the mating electrical contact.
Hirose discloses (see FIG 8, 9, para. [0047]) provision of a lubricant to the radiused portion 10b of terminal 10, which would inherently result in the lubricant spreading to the mating contact and any surface which comes into contact with either the mating contact or the radiused portion of the terminal. The lubricant contains metal nanoparticles configured to improve electrical contact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Advantest by applying a conductive lubricant to the radiused portion of the electrical contact (and thus inherently applying the lubricant in the voids of the radiused portion) such that, when mated with a mating contact, lubricant in the voids may spread to the raised contact areas, for the purposes of improving electrical contact between the mated connectors.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Applicant merely recites the same subject matter found in claims 4 and 5 (with respect to claim 14) and 11 (with respect to claim 19). As detailed above, the first combination discloses the subject matter of claims 4, 5, and 11. Examiner therefore finds that the rejections of claims 4, 5, and 11 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited in claims 14 and 19.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant recites an alternative embodiment of the electrical contact recited in claim 1, the alternative embodiment further reciting lubricant provided in the voids. As detailed in the rejection of claim 11, above, the first combination discloses both the subject matter of claim 1 (by virtue of dependency) and the provision of lubricant in the voids (as taught by Hirose). Examiner therefore finds that the rejection of claims 1 and 11 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited by claim 20.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advantest.
Regarding claim 9, Advantest discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not specifically disclose the raised contact areas “extend[ing] at an angle of between 20 degrees and 70 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the electrical contact.
Advantest does, however, disclose that the raised contact areas may extend at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis (see FIGS 7a, 8a, and 9a, each depicted raised contact areas that are arcuate and, thus, extend at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis). Thus, the difference between the prior art and the instant claim may be characterized as a modification of the generic angle of Advantest to an angle specifically within a range of 20-70 degrees. As the sides of Advantest are straight, changing an angle of the raised contact areas effectively changes the cross-sectional shape of the raised contact areas (e.g., when viewed from above).
The courts have previously held that configuration of a claimed element is “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration…was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Here, changing the shape of the raised contact area has the expect result of changing the point of first contact for each raised contact area, among other obvious outcomes. Moreover, the specific angle recited by Applicant appears to be no critical significance since it is disclosed as nothing more than an alternative “illustrative embodiment.” There is no discussion in the disclosure as filed as to why the recited range is significant or otherwise desirable, indicating a lack of criticality.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Advantest such that the raised contact areas are provided at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis, the angle falling between 20 and 70 degrees, because the angle is nothing more than an obvious modification of the shape of the raised contact areas and would have the obvious and expected result of changing which portion and when each raised contact area would first come into contact with a mating connector during mating.
Regarding claim 10, Advanest discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and further discloses the voids extending at the same angle relative to the longitudinal axis…as the raised contact areas (inherent; the voids of Advantest extend in between and parallel to their adjacent raised contact areas; thus, modification of the angle which the raised contact areas are provided at also results in the voids being provided at the same angle).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Applicant merely recites the same subject matter found in claims 9 and 10. As detailed above, Advantest discloses the subject matter of claims 9 and 10. Examiner therefore finds that the rejections of claims 9 and 10 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited in claims 17 and 18.
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 THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights