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 08/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s replacement drawings address the pending drawing objections and they are therefore withdrawn. The replacement drawings are accepted. The amendments to claims 1, 13, and 14 overcome the pending rejections of the same under §112; the relevant rejections are therefore withdrawn. Applicant’s traversal of the rejections under §102 and/or §103 begin in substance on page 5 of the Remarks. Applicant generally asserts that the applied prior art fails to disclose the amended subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose: (1) “the fixing section extending perpendicular to the contacting direction” and (2) “the stopping section rests in a pretensioned manner against the resting section on the carrier body.” Both of these assertions are factually incorrect.
With respect to (1) above, those of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from Bergner, e.g., FIGS 1 and 8, contact elements 12 have a fixing section 32, wherein the fixing section has a width dimension that extends along an axis that is perpendicular to the direction T as indicated by FIG 8. Since the contacts, and the fixing sections thereof, have a width direction that extends along an axis perpendicular to direction T, Bergner unambiguously discloses “the fixing section extending perpendicular to the contacting direction.” Thus, it is evident that Applicant’s assertion that the prior art fails to disclose such cannot be reasonably sustained.
With respect to (2) above, Bergner discloses a stopping section for each contact (see annotated FIG 8 within the previous Office Action). The stopping section is provided at a forward end of each contact 12. Each contact 12 further includes a spring arm 26 (Bergner, para. [0028]) thereby disclosing the contact as being pre-tensioned. As may be seen from annotated FIG 8, the stopped section of each contact 12 rests against a corresponding surface (“a resting surface”) of the molded carrier body 16. Since the contacts 12 have a stopping section (as shown by annotated FIG 8) that exists on a spring-tensioned arm (para. [0028]), wherein the stopping section rests against a surface of the carrier body (as seen in annotated FIG 8), Bergner unambiguously discloses “the stopping section rests in a pretensioned manner against the resting section on the carrier body.” Thus, it is evident that Applicant’s assertion that the prior art fails to disclose such cannot be reasonably sustained.
Despite the above, Applicant argues that the stopping section as indicated by annotated FIG 8 is not actually a stopping section because “Bergner is not indicated with a reference number” and does not “describe in the application as serving as a stopping section.” This argument is wholly and transparently without merit. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Bergner unambiguously depicts a contact 12 having a section thereof (indicated by the arrow of annotated FIG 8) that may be reasonably construed as “a stopping section.” At absolute minimum, the indicated portion prevents the contacts from moving vertically past molded carrier body 16; that is, the indicated portion stops the contacts from moving further upward. Thus, the indicated portion is clearly and unambiguously “a stopping section” when the claim is properly evaluated under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Furthermore, as shown by the same annotated figure, the stopping section rests against a surface of carrier body 16. Thus, “the stopping section rests…against the resting section of the molded carrier body.” Finally, as discussed above, contact 12 includes a spring arm 26, inhering a tensioned state. As the tensioned state must be provided prior to placement within carrier body 16, the spring arm (and thus the contact as whole) may be reasonably interpreted as “pretensioned.” Thus, Bergner clearly and unambiguously discloses “the stopping section rests in a pre-tensioned manner against the resting section of the molded carrier body.”
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Applicant’s “argument” contains no evidence in support of the baseless and unsustainable conclusion that a lack of expressly written disclosure amounts to a complete failure to disclose. As made clear by In re Heck, the disclosure of the prior art is not limited to the words expressly included in the Specification thereof; instead, the prior art is “relevant for all” that it discloses, including inherent disclosure, implicit disclosure, and that which one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from the express disclosure. Thus, Applicant’s argument that Bergner’s alleged failure to expressly state the instant subject matter is equivalent to a complete failure to disclose is not only factually incorrect, but it is also transparently at odds with established case law.
Since Applicant’s arguments are factually incorrect, unsupported by any form of persuasive evidence, and at odds with established case law, Examiner cannot consider any of the arguments to be persuasive. As there are no compelling arguments indicating reversible error, the pending rejections are maintained (modified as necessary in view of the amendments).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0066858 (“Bergner”).
Regarding claim 1, Bergner discloses a contact carrier (FIG 1)[,] comprising:
at least one contact element (12), the at least one contact element including a contact section (28) for contacting a mating contact element along a contacting direction (e.g., direction “T” as depicted in FIG 8), the at least one contact element including a stopping section (see annotated FIG 8, below, where the added arrow points to “a stopping section”); and
a molded carrier body (16) fixing the at least one contact element at a fixing section thereof (FIG 1:32; para. [0029] provides that “retention portion 32 may be a straight segment of the corresponding spring beam 26 fixedly retained by the contact carrier 16”), the molded carrier body having a resting section (portion of carrier body 16, adjacent to the identifying line for element 16 in FIG 8);
wherein the contact section is elastically deflectable relative to the molded carrier body against the contacting direction (inherent; contact elements 12 are comprised of spring beams 26; as would be inferred by those of ordinary skill, spring beams 26 would deflect in a direction orthogonal to direction T; as carrier body 16 holds the spring beams in place, the deflection must be “relative to the carrier body” as recited);
wherein the stopping section rests in a pre-tensioned manner against the resting section on the molded carrier body (see annotated FIG 8, below, where the arrow indicates the stopping section and where the resting section is the portion of carrier body 16 against which the stopping section rests); and
wherein the fixing section (32) extending perpendicular (a width of the contact 12 and its fixing section 32 extends along an axis perpendicular to contacting direction T) to the contacting direction (FIG 8, T).
While Bergner does not explicitly state that the carrier body 16 is a “molded” carrier body, Examiner finds that this limitation is inherent to the explicit disclosure of Bergner. Even assuming, arguendo, that it is not an inherent feature of Bergner’s disclosure, provision of carrier body 16 by overmolding it onto spring beams 26 would nonetheless be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Bergner provides for fixing of the contact elements within the carrier body, and further depicts such in FIG 8, but does not specify how the fixing of the contact elements is achieved. FIG 8 shows that the rear portion of the carrier body is a singular surface, as indicated by the lack of any apparent seam and the use of a singular type of shading for the surface. The lack of a seam is significant, as FIG 10 does depict an embodiment wherein the carrier body 16 is provided as upper and lower pieces surrounding the spring beams 26, evidenced by the clear and unambiguous inclusion of a seam along the rear face of the carrier body 16.
Bergner, therefore, may be reasonably interpreted by Examiner as providing a single piece housing in which the contact element(s) is/are disposed. As may be further seen from FIG 8, spring beams 26 have a plurality of bends disposed to either side of the retaining portion. These bends would clearly preclude slipping the spring beams 26 through openings in the carrier body after it is formed; thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would plausibly and reasonably infer that carrier body 16 is overmolded onto spring beams 26.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the carrier body 16 would not be immediately understood as being overmolded onto the spring beams 26, the reference nonetheless teaches disposition of bent spring beams 26 within a one-piece carrier body 16 and, thus, one of ordinary skill would have to determine how the spring beams are placed into this configuration. The process of forming securing elements by overmolding materials onto said elements is unambiguously well-known in the art.
As such, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the explicit disclosure and teachings of Bergner by providing the one-piece carrier body 16 by overmolding said carrier body onto spring beams 26 because the overmolding process is ubiquitously well-known for housing and securing components.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the carrier body being a single piece (as seen in FIG 8, carrier body is provided with a singular rear surface which surrounds spring beams 26; thus, FIG 8 discloses carrier body 16 as being “a single piece”).
Regarding claim 3, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the stopping section is deflectable with the contact section (inherent; the stopping section of Bergner is an end portion of the contact element 12, and contact section 28 is also a part of contact element 12; in order for the stopping section to deflect, the contact section 28 must first come into contact with the mating connector and be deflected itself).
Regarding claim 4, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the contact element is molded into the carrier body at the fixing section (as discussed, above).
Regarding claim 5, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the contact section being located between the stopping section and the fixing section (as seen in FIG 8).
Regarding claim 6, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the stopping section being pre-tensioned along the contacting direction (as seen in FIG 8, spring beam 26 is formed at an upward angle as it extends to the left away from the retaining portion 32; this may be reasonably inferred or interpreted as being “pre-tensioned along the contacting direction,” particularly when considered in light of the term “spring” to describe these beams, implying that they are designed to return to the depicted position when not deflected by contact with a mating connector).
Regarding claim 7, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the stopping section being located at a free end of the contact element (as shown by FIG 8).
Regarding claim 8, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the stopping section extending perpendicularly to the contacting direction (as shown by FIG 8).
Regarding claim 9, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Bergner further discloses the contact carrier comprising at least two contact elements (as shown in the various figures).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant effectively recites a method of producing the contact carrier of claim 1 by molding the carrier body which a contact section of the contact element is elastically deflected relative to the fixing section during the molding step.
Those of ordinary skill would appreciate that this is more or less inherent to explicit disclosure of Bergner, or in the alternative, inherent to the obvious modification proposed in the alternative rejection of claim 1, above. As shown by FIG 8 of Bergner, carrier body 16 may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as being of one-piece formation, evidenced by FIG 8 depicting the rear surface of carrier body 16 without any form of seam that would indicate upper and lower elements surrounding spring beams 26. Moreover, the stopping section of Berger is depicted as resting upon the resting section of the carrier body 16. In order to achieve this, spring beams 26 would need to be pre-tensioned such that the stopping section would sit above the configuration shown in FIG 8. Stated another way, the spring beams of Bergner must be pre-tensioned such that they are biased in an upward direction in order for the stopping section to sit on the resting section as shown in FIG 8. With this amount of bias provided, the stopping section would be positioned above the resting section if it were not first deflected downwardly during the overmolding process. Stated another way, the biasing force imposed by pre-tensioning must be accommodated during the overmolding process to ensure that the stopping section sits on the resting section as shown in FIG 8.
As such, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 10, where the deflection of the contact section recited by the instant claim is nothing more than an inherent requirement of the manufacturing process to ensure that the configuration depicted by FIG 8 of Bergner is achieved after removing the carrier body 16 from the mold.
Regarding claim 11, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10 and further discloses the contact element is embedded in the carrier body (as shown by FIG 8) by overmolding at a fixing section of the contact element (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 12, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10 but does not disclose the carrier body being formed with only a single molding step. This is, however, inherent to the disclosure of Bergner. As shown by FIG 8, the rear surface of carrier body 16 is a solid, unsegmented surface. Thus, the top and bottom portions shown with differing shading must be formed by a single molding process; multiple steps of overmolding would result in seams between the portions molded in different steps.
As seen in the preceding figures of Bergner, the forward portions (i.e., those closest to where the mating connector is inserted or mated) of the carrier body 16 are of single piece formation with the lower rear portion of the carrier body 16. Since the upper and lower rear portions must be formed in a singular step to avoid the presence of seams, and since the forward and rearward lower portions are lack a seam and are therefore also formed in a single step, Bergner may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as inherently disclosing the carrier body 16 being formed within a single molding step.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Bergner could not be interpreted in the manner above, those of ordinary skill would appreciate that multiple steps of overmolding present a more complicated manufacturing process and, thus, would seek to minimize the steps necessary. Forming the carrier body 16 with a single-step overmolding process eliminates the need to wait for curing or hardening of a first portion formed in a second step, thereby reducing production times. Use of a single molding step also eliminates the need for multiple molding bodies corresponding to the respective molding steps, thereby reducing production costs.
Examiner therefore finds that, even if single-step formation is not inherent to Bergner, one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) would nonetheless find it obvious to modify the explicit disclosure of Bergner to form the one-piece carrier body 16 of Bergner in a singular overmolding step for the purposes of reducing production times and costs associated with manufacture of the disclosed connector.
Regarding claim 13, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10 and further discloses a resting face (the surface against which stopping section of annotated FIG 8, above, rests upon) of the carrier body (the relevant surface is a surface of carrier body 16) is formed to receive a stopping section in a pre-tensioned manner (see annotated FIG 8, para. [0028] regarding spring arm 26, and Examiner’s response to arguments).
Regarding claim 14, Bergner discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10 but does not explicitly disclose a part of the carrier body being formed at a location which would otherwise be occupied by the stopping section if it were not deflected during the overmolding process.
Ultimately, this subject matter relates more to the amount of pre-tensioning of the contact element than it does to the carrier body itself. The space which would be occupied by the stopping section is a direct and inherent result of how much the contact element is pre-tensioned. The amount of pre-tensioning is a result effective variable that determines how hard it is to deflect the contact elements downwardly. The greater the pre-tensioning, the more force required to deflect the contact element over a greater distance. At the same time, greater pre-tensioning also increases the difficult of inserting the mating connector, as it is the mating connector which must deflect the contact element. The greater pre-tensioning would also increase the force required to remove a mated connector, as there would be a greater force (i.e., the force of the pre-tensioned contact element attempting to return to its undeflected state) acting on the mated connector.
Pre-tensioning the contact element such that it would otherwise exist in a position occupied by the carrier body were it not deflected during overmolding would achieve these goals. More specifically, pre-tensioning the contact element such that the stopping section would exist in a position directly above the resting surface but within the space occupied by the carrier body would result in sufficient upward biasing to keep the stopping section resting against the resting surface while minimizing the amount of force required to deflect it downwardly when inserting a mating connector.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Here, Bergman discloses the carrier body, the positioning and pre-tensioning of the contact element, and the resting surface after molding the carrier body. As discussed above, Bergman must also inherently include a process of deflecting the contact element during overmolding in order to have the stopping section rest in the position shown by FIG 8. Thus, Bergman may be understood to disclose “the general conditions” of claim 14, with the sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art being the exact amount of pre-tensioning force required to maintain contact between the resting surface and the stopping section when unmated, while simultaneously avoiding too much pre-tensioning that would make it harder to insert a mating connector. Achieving this balancing act would require obvious, routine experimentation.
Thus, it is evident that claim 14 is a matter of routine optimization with the goal of obtaining the optimal amount of pre-tensioning that ensures the contact element and its stopping section consistently and continually rest against the resting surface when unmated (i.e., that the pre-tensioning has a biasing force large enough to do so), while simultaneously ensuring that the pre-tensioning is low enough to enable easy insertion and removal of the mating connector (i.e., that the pre-tensioning has a biasing force low enough that the contact element may be easily deflected by the mating connector and does not exert too much force that would prevent unmating of the connectors).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the explicit disclosure of Bergman by pre-tensioning the spring beams 26 to the extent that stopping sections of the contact elements 12 exist, prior to deflection required for overmolding, in a space occupied by carrier body 16 in the finished product. In so doing, one of ordinary skill would achieve an optimal amount of upward biasing force that ensures contact between the stopping section and the resting surface when unmated while minimizing the force required to insert a mating connector.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant merely recites “an apparatus” having “parts” to perform the method of claim 10. As discussed above, Bergner discloses the limitations of claim 10. As Bergner must have the “parts” required to perform the method of producing the disclosed connector, Examiner finds that the rejections of claims 1 and 10 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
