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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata (US 2012/0231639).
Regarding claim 1: Murata teaches a self-adjusting centering terminal mounting structure (see Figs. 18-20), comprising a conductive terminal 12 and a terminal clamping seat (at 11b; Fig. 18), wherein the conductive terminal 12 includes a fixed section 12c, the fixed section 12c is externally provided with a clamping groove (above 12d; Fig. 20), the terminal clamping seat (at 11b; Fig. 20) is internally provided with a mounting hole 11c1 (Fig. 18), the clamping groove (above 12d; Fig. 20) of the conductive terminal 12 is disposed in the mounting hole 11c1 (see Fig. 20), and a mounting clearance is formed between the clamping groove (above 12d; Fig. 20) and the mounting hole 11c1 (see Fig. 20 for clearance around terminal portion 12d).
Regarding claim 4: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the terminal clamping seat (at 11b; Fig. 18) comprises a mounting panel 11a, on which the mounting hole 11c1 is located (see Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 5: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches wherein the terminal clamping seat (at 11b; Fig. 18) further comprises reinforcing ribs (at 11c; Fig. 17), which are located around the mounting hole 11c1 and disposed perpendicular to the mounting panel (see Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 6: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches a passage 11c2 is disposed between an edge of the mounting panel 11 and the mounting hole 11c1, and the clamping groove (above 12d; Fig. 20) of the conductive terminal 12 is capable of entering the mounting hole via the passage (see Figs. 19-20).
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.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 2012/0231639).
Regarding claim 2: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches comprising a radial clearance (see Fig. 20 for a radial clearance around portion 12d), and the conductive terminal 12 is movable in its radial direction within the range of the radial clearance (see Fig. 20 for the terminal configured ).
Murata does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting clearance comprises a radial clearance which is in a range of 0.3 mm to 3.7 mm.
Regarding the radial clearance: Murata discloses the mounting clearance comprises a radial clearance but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a radial clearance in a range of 0.3 mm to 3.7 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of teaching the mounting clearance comprising a radial clearance which is in a range of 0.3 mm to 3.7 mm is to ensure enough space exists around the terminal for installation and holding and not damaging.
Regarding claim 3: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the mounting clearance comprises an axial clearance (above 12d; see Fig. 20), and the conductive terminal 12 is movable in its axial direction within the range of the axial clearance (see Fig. 20).
Murata does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting clearance comprises an axial clearance which is in a range of 0.4 mm to 12.3 mm.
Regarding the axial clearance: Murata discloses the mounting clearance comprises an axial clearance but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an axial clearance in a range of 0.4 mm to 12.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of teaching the mounting clearance comprising an axial clearance which is in a range of 0.4 mm to 12.3 mm is to ensure enough space exists around the terminal for installation and holding and not damaging.
Regarding claim 8: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Murata does not explicitly teach a ratio of a minimum width of the passage to a minimum diameter of the clamping groove is 93% to 98.5%.
Regarding the ratio of a minimum width: Murata discloses a minimum width of the passage to a minimum diameter of the clamping groove but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a ratio of a minimum width of the passage to a minimum diameter of the clamping groove is 93% to 98.5%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of teaching a ratio of a minimum width of the passage to a minimum diameter of the clamping groove is 93% to 98.5% is to ensure enough space exists around the terminal for installation and holding and not damaging.
Regarding claim 10: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Murata does not explicitly teach wherein an assembly force between the clamping groove and the passage is 6 N to 55 N.
Regarding an assembly force: Murata discloses an assembly force between the clamping groove and the passage but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an assembly force between the clamping groove and the passage is 6 N to 55 N, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of teaching an assembly force between the clamping groove and the passage is 6 N to 55 N is to ensure enough force is provided to assemble and hold the terminal.
Regarding claim 11: Murata teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Murata does not explicitly teach wherein an impact strength of a material of the mounting panel is 115 MPa to 1300 MPa.
Regarding an impact strength of a material: Murata discloses an impact strength of a material of the mounting panel but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an impact strength of a material of the mounting panel is 115 MPa to 1300 MPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of teaching an impact strength of a material of the mounting panel is 115 MPa to 1300 MPa is to provide a mounting panel with sufficient impact strength to withstand damage and not fail.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 12-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for pertinent prior art, the following references being of closest relevance:
Uenosono (US 2018/0019532) teaches a connector comprising a structure for holding a terminal within;
Deno (US 2025/0385461) teaches a connector comprising a structure for holding a terminal within;
Feldner (US 2016/0233622) teaches a connector comprising a structure for holding a terminal within;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights