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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4 and 6: “- a housing” should be changed to “[[-]]a housing”
“- a printed circuit board” should be changed to “[[-]]a printed circuit board”
“- a plug-in connector part” should be changed to “[[-]]a plug-in connector part”
Claim 5, line 3: “which latch element is configured to latch” should be changed to “wherein the latch element is configured to latch”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, as recited “a gold-plated surface of the printed circuit board is tin-plated in the region of the plug-in portion.” However, the specification states “When the gold-plated contact surfaces are tin-plated beforehand, both advantages can be utilized.” As it appears, the claim seems to recite that the PCB is first gold-plated and then tin-plated in the plug-in portion region while the specification appears to state the reverse order of tin first then gold. Which configuration is the applicant’s intent? For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim in light of the specification where “both advantages can be utilized” as gold over tin.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeder et al. (DE 102006028472A1), hereinafter Schroeder.
PNG
media_image1.png
289
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Schroeder discloses a plug-in connecting device for a motor vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising a housing (upper housing part 1, lower housing part 2, Fig. 1) comprising a plug-in opening (see Fig. 4), a printed circuit board (circuit board 3, Fig. 1) that is arranged in the housing and comprises a plug-in portion in the region of an edge (circuit board edge portion 15, Fig. 1) of the printed circuit board, and a plug-in connector part (PCB edge connector 4, Fig. 1) which can be plugged into the plug-in opening in the housing in a plug-in direction (plug-in direction P, Fig. 4 above) such that it electrically contacts the plug-in portion of the printed circuit board (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the plug-in connector part comprises at least one stop (stop 12a, Fig. 4 above), which strikes at least one stop (end stops 12, Fig. 4) on the housing in the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 2, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one stop on the housing (12a, Fig. 4 above) and the at least one stop (12, Fig. 4) on the plug-in connector part are configured such that the at least one stop on the plug-in connector part strikes the at least one stop on the housing when being plugged-in in the plug-in direction in to the plug-in opening before the plug-in connector part comes into contact with the edge of the printed circuit board (see gap in Fig. 4 between edge connector 4 and edge portion 15).
Regarding claim 3, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one stop (12a, Fig. 4 above) on the housing, when viewed in the plug-in direction (P, Fig. 4 above), is arranged in front of the edge of the printed circuit board (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the plug-in connector part comprises a body (Fig. 2), on which a plurality of contacts (contacts 11, Fig. 2) are mounted, wherein the body is spaced apart from the edge of the printed circuit board in a plugged-in state of the plug-in connector part when viewed in the plug-in direction (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein at least on latch element (housing ribs 5, 6) is formed on the housing, wherein the latch element is configured to latch to at least one latch element formed on the plug-in connector part in order to prevent the plug-in connector part from being pulled out counter to the plug-in direction (Par. 0032, “The printed circuit board edge connector ( 4 ) is arranged between the first and second pair of housing ribs ( 5 , 6 ) and is in contact with all housing ribs ( 5 , 6 ) or with a slight clamping force.”).
Regarding claim 6, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 5, wherein the at least on latch element on the housing is arranged in a plane together with the printed circuit board (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a collar (locking element 13, Fig. 1), which is configured to laterally support the plug-in connector part in a plugged-in state.
Regarding claim 10, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the plug-in connector part engages around a corner of the printed circuit board in a plugged-in state (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein at least one portion of the housing is inclined towards the printed circuit board in the region of the plug-in opening (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board is rigidly connected to the housing (printed circuit board 3 is retained in housing 1, 2).
Regarding claim 17, Schroeder discloses a motor vehicle (Par. 0001, “The invention relates to a control unit, in particular for a motor vehicle”), comprising the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (DE 102006028472A1) in view of Huether (DE 10162405A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 5.
However, Schroeder fails to disclose wherein the at least one latch element on the plug-in connector part is in the form of a flexible latch arm in order to resiliently snap behind the at least one latch element on the housing, which is configured as a latch rim, when plugging the plug-in connector part into the plug-in portion of the printed circuit board.
Huether teaches wherein the at least one latch element (locking elements 4, Fig. 3) on the plug-in connector part (plug 5, Fig. 3) is in the form of a flexible latch arm in order to resiliently snap behind the at least one latch element on the housing (see locking element 4 latch around plug 5 when inserted, Fig. 3), which is configured as a latch rim (rim made by plug 5 body, Fig. 3), when plugging the plug-in connector part into the plug-in portion of the printed circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huether to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide a plug-in connecting device having a latching element configured to resiliently snap behind a corresponding latch element on the housing to prevent the connector from being pulled out and maintain secure connection at all times during operation. Latching means to maintain secure contact are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (DE 102006028472A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 20200238930A1), hereinafter Yamanaka.
Regarding claim 8, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 5, wherein the housing comprises two housing parts (upper housing part 1, lower housing part 2, Fig. 1).
However, Schroeder fails to disclose wherein fastening points are configured for fastening the housing to another component on those housing parts on which the at least one latch element on the housing is also formed.
Yamanaka teaches wherein fastening points (brackets 6, 7, Fig. 1-2) are configured for fastening the housing to another component on those housing parts on which the at least one latch element on the housing is also formed (see Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamanaka to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide a plug-in connecting device wherein fastening points are configured to attach the housing to another component. One would be motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations of the connecting device during operation of a motor vehicle where vibrations are common and can cause disconnection issues with various parts on the vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (DE 102006028472A1) in view of Jouenard et al. (WO 2009071545A1), hereinafter Jouenard.
Regarding claim 11, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1.
However, Schroeder fails to disclose wherein a cable attached to the plug-in connector part is held on a holder of the housing by means of a strain relief device.
Jouenard teaches wherein a cable (electric bundle 26, Fig. 1) attached to the plug-in connector part is held on a holder (plate 22, Fig. 1) of the housing by means of a strain relief device (clamping rings 37. Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jouenard to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide a strain relief device capable of holding the cable onto the housing. One would be motivated to make this modification to keep the cables from displacing during operation and to keep the plug-in connector part secured and safe from accidental unplugging. Strain relief devices are well known in the art for securing loose cables/wires.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (DE 102006028472A1) in view of Greenbank et al. (EP 1010570A2), hereinafter Greenbank.
Regarding claim 14, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1.
However, Schroeder fails to disclose wherein the housing comprises a motor receptacle for fastening a motor.
Greenbank teaches wherein the housing (housing endcap 38) comprises a motor receptacle (see Fig. 2) for fastening a motor (motor 12, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Greenbank to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide a housing having a motor receptacle for fastening a motor. One would be motivated to make this modification to allow for use of a control unit to be directly connected to a motor. Although not explicitly disclosed in Schroeder, the invention of Schroeder is for a control unit for use in a motor vehicle (Par. 0001).
Regarding claim 16, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1.
However, Schroeder fails to disclose an adjustment apparatus and a motor mounted on the housing.
Greenbank teaches an adjustment apparatus (remote controller 18, Fig. 1) and a motor (motor 12, Fig. 2) mounted on the housing (housing endcap 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Greenbank to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide an adjustment apparatus and a motor mounted to the housing. One would be motivated to make this modification to allow for use of a control unit to be directly connected to a motor for adjustment. Although not explicitly disclosed in Schroeder, the invention of Schroeder is for a control unit for use in a motor vehicle (Par. 0001).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (DE 102006028472A1) in view of Yim et al. (US 20070104929), hereinafter Yim.
Regarding claim 15, Schroeder discloses the plug-in connecting device according to claim 1.
However, Schroeder fails to disclose wherein a gold-plated surface of the printed circuit board is tin-plated in the region of the plug-in portion.
Yim teaches wherein a gold-plated surface of the printed circuit board is tin-plated in the region of the plug-in portion (Par. 0086, “On the printed circuit board pre-treated as described above, tin (Sn) was deposited through a substitution reaction to a thickness of 1.2 .mu.m. Following a catalytic treatment, a gold plated layer was formed to a thickness of 0.05 .mu.m in an electroless plating process”, Figs. 1-4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yim to modify the invention of Schroeder to provide a printed circuit board contact surface in the plug-in portion that are tin-plated and then gold-plated to realize the benefits of corrosion protection and long term storage wherein the surfaces do not need to be immediately soldered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diaconu (US 20200295481) discloses a printed circuit board for use in a motor vehicle that are vibration prone.
Takase et al. (US Patent 7,094,072) discloses a connector holding structure which can fix a connector to an electronic circuit board with fasteners.
Sueki et al. (US Patent 5,641,291) discloses a PCB wherein the contact regions are primed with copper and nickel and then plated with gold.
Lemke et al. (US Patent 6,325,644) discloses a connector wherein the contact engagement areas are plated with gold for soldering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Mountain whose telephone number is (703)756-1939. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 6:30pm ET.
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.
/JEFFREY MOUNTAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights