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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 20, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear which element references number 10 and 12 refer to in figure 2. Both references appear to point to the same area and not a specific element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (JPH05-36763) in view of Mosquera (US 5,509,814).
In regards to claim 1, Miyazawa teaches a contact retention device for an integrated circuit (figure 1) including a common substrate (1) having a hole (3) passing through the common substrate (1), the contact retention device (5) comprising:
- a support part (7) adapted to be fixed to the common substrate (1) and comprising including an orifice (7b) adapted to be aligned with the hole (3); and
- a retention part (10) fixed to the support part and centered by the orifice (7b)(figure 1), the retention part (10) comprising including an upper part (12) adapted to guide the insertion of an electrical conductor (lead (35)) into the orifice (7b), a lower part (15) adapted to form a resilient contact between the inserted electrical conductor (35) and the retention part (10)(it is possible to secure a pressing force to the electronic component leads, the inner contact for configuration of the read socket such that it can reduce the size of the inner contact (paragraph [0006])), and a median part (11) disposed between the upper part (12) and the lower part (15), the median part (11) and the lower part (15) being adapted to be inserted into the hole (3).
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice.
Mosquera teaches the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips (84, 86; metal, column 2 lines 58-62 (also shown as tapered elements 10 in figure 1) folded away from the center of the orifice (see figure 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice as taught by Mosquera for the bending radius being large enough that the contact is compressed to a reduced diameter to lie in interference fit with the hole walls (column 2 lines 58-62); such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regards to claim 3, Miyazawa teaches the contact retention device (10) as claimed in claim 1.
Miyazawa does not teach the lower part comprises includes a plurality of metal clips folded toward the center of the orifice.
Mosquera teaches wherein the lower part (32, figure 1) comprises includes a plurality of metal clips (82, 84) folded toward the center of the orifice (opposite surface of beam (70)).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice as taught by Mosquera for the bending radius being large enough that the contact is compressed to a reduced diameter to lie in interference fit with the hole walls (column 2 lines 58-62); such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regards to claim 6, Miyazawa teaches the contact retention device (10) as claimed in claim 1.
Miyazawa does not teach the support part and the retention part are formed as a single metal part.
Mosquera teaches the support part (70) and the retention part (44) are formed as a single metal part (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the support part and the retention part are formed as a single metal part, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
In regards to claim 9, Miyazawa teaches an integrated circuit (printed circuit board (1)) comprising: a common substrate (1) having a hole (through hole 3) passing through the common substrate (1); and a contact retention devicebetween the inserted electrical conductor and the retention part (it is possible to secure a pressing force to the electronic component leads, the inner contact for configuration of the read socket such that it can reduce the size of the inner contact (paragraph [0006]), and a median part (11) disposed between the upper part (12) and the lower part (15) (see figure 6), the median part (11) and the lower part (15) being adapted to be inserted into the hole (3, see figure 1), the support part (7) being fixed to the common substrate (1), and the median part (11) and the lower part (15) of the retention part (10) being inserted into the hole (3).
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice.
Mosquera teaches the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips (84, 86; metal, column 2 lines 58-62) (also shown as tapered elements 10 in figure 1) folded away from the center of the orifice (see figure 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice as taught by Mosquera for the bending radius being large enough that the contact is compressed to a reduced diameter to lie in interference fit with the hole walls (column 2 lines 58-62); such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regards to claim 10, Miyazawa teaches a DC motor arrangement for an automotive windshield wiper (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a DC motor arrangement for an automotive windshield wiper” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02) ) comprising an integrated (printed circuit board (1)) including a common substrate (1) having a hole (3) passing through (figure 1) the common substrate (1), and a contact retention device (5) including a support part (7) adapted to be fixed to the common substrate (1) and including an orifice (7b) adapted to be aligned with the hole (3), and a retention part (10) fixed to the support part (7) and centered by the orifice (7b), the retention part (10) including an upper part adapted to guide the insertion of an electrical conductor (lead (35)) into the orifice (7b), a lower part (15) adapted to form a resilient contact between the inserted electrical conductor (35) and the retention part (10) (it is possible to secure a pressing force to the electronic component leads, the inner contact for configuration of the read socket such that it can reduce the size of the inner contact (paragraph [0006]), and a median part (11) disposed between the upper part (12) and the lower part (15), the median part (11) and the lower part (15) being adapted to be inserted into the hole (3)(figure 1), the support part (7) being fixed to the common substrate (1), and the median part (11) and the lower part of the retention part (10) being inserted into the hole (3), the median part (11) and the lower part (15) being adapted to be inserted into the hole (3), the support part (7) being fixed to the common substrate (1), and the median part (11) and the lower part (15) of the retention part (10) being inserted into the hole (3).
Miyazawa does not explicitly teach the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice.
Mosquera teaches the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips (84, 86; metal, column 2 lines 58-62) (also shown as tapered elements 10 in figure 1) folded away from the center of the orifice (see figure 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the upper part comprises includes at least two conical shaped metal clips folded away from the center of the orifice as taught by Mosquera for the bending radius being large enough that the contact is compressed to a reduced diameter to lie in interference fit with the hole walls (column 2 lines 58-62); such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 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.
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
The examiner cites Mosquera elements 84, 86 as "conical shaped metal clips", but these elements (82-86) are actually described as "lips" that "bear against the upper surface 88 of the circuit board", not the retention tabs. Mosquera's actual tabs (42-46) have a complex three-part structure with an inner part extending radially inward, an outer part extending radially outward, and a curved middle connecting them. This multi-directional configuration differs from the claimed simple "conical shaped" clips, and the examiner appears to have misidentified the relevant structural elements.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully traverse. As stated in claim rejections 1, 9 and 10, the "conical shaped metal clips" are being interpreted as tapered elements 84 and 86 (also shown as element (10) in figure 1) of Mosquera and not tabs 42-46 as argues by the applicant. As shown in figure 3 shows elements 84, 86 being folded away from the center of the retention portion in a tapered shape (see figure 1). Changing the shape of the clips to be folded at a certain angled (conical) is a mere change of shape and the configuration of the elements 84 and 86 of Mosquera reasonably reads on the claimed conical-shaped clips. As mentioned in the previous rejection, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The applicant’s attempt to distinguish the claim by reference to Mosquera’s tabs 42–46 is therefore not responsive to the rejection. The Examiner has not relied on those tabs as the basis for the rejection, and any alleged structural differences in those tabs do not overcome the cited disclosure of tapered elements 84 and 86.
Furthermore, Mosquera's tabs have an inner part extending at a radially inward incline and an outer part extending at a radially outward incline with a curved middle between them, which is structurally distinct from clips "folded away from the center." The examiner's motivation references "bending radius" and "interference fit", but this rationale does not adequately explain why one would specifically modify Kanzaki to use the claimed configuration of clips folded away from center.
Examiner’s response: The examiner has relied only of the tapered elements 84 and 86 (also shown as tapered elements 10 in figure 1) not tabs 42-46 as argues by the applicant. The argument does not apply to the rejection.
Additionally, Mosquera explicitly teaches that the tabs have "outer parts extending radially outwardly with a tip (60) that presses against the hole walls" to "retain the socket contact in the hole" and describes increasing retention by having the outer edges press firmly against the hole walls to locally deform the plating. In contrast, the claimed upper part is "adapted to guide the insertion of an electrical conductor into the orifice" and allows "guided manual insertion of the electrical conductor" to "guarantee an appropriate insertion angle". Mosquera's retention tabs that press outward against hole walls for mechanical retention cannot perform the claimed guiding function of directing conductor insertion. The skilled artisan would not look to Mosquera's outward-pressing retention tabs when seeking to guide inward conductor insertion, as these are fundamentally different technical solutions addressing different problems.
Examiner’s response: The examiner has relied only of the tapered elements 84 and 86 (also shown as tapered elements 10 in figure 1) not tabs 42-46 as argues by the applicant. The argument does not apply to the rejection. In addition, the claims are directed to structural limitations, and the Examiner’s rejection is based on the disclosure of the structural shape in Mosquera. The fact that Applicant attributes a particular guiding function to the claimed upper part does not remove a structurally corresponding tapered element from the scope of the prior art.
Finally, the examiner's rejection relies on "obvious matter of design choice" and states "a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art". However, this fails to address the specific technical requirements of the claimed invention. The specification explains that the upper part must "guarantee an appropriate insertion angle of the electrical conductor" to "reduce the risk of damaging the contact holder" and the lower part must "form a resilient contact" such that "the upper part and the lower part allow the appropriate angle to be maintained between the inserted electrical conductor and the contact holder, even after manual insertion". These are coordinated functional requirements, not mere shape changes. The examiner has not explained how the skilled artisan would arrive at the specific claimed configuration from Mosquera's retention-focused tabs and specialized dual-contact beams, which serve entirely different technical purposes in a different operational context.
Examiner Response: The Examiner respectfully traverse. The rejection does address the claimed structure and the reason it would have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed configuration. The mere recitation of advantageous results in the specification does not render obvious structural differences patentable, particularly where the prior art already teaches the relevant tapered clip geometry. The, applicant relies on alleged functional advantages, no evidence has been presented showing that the claimed configuration produces unexpected results or that the cited prior art would have discouraged the proposed modification. The asserted advantages are not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness where the structural features are taught or suggested by the prior art.In conclusion, the Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10.Mosquera teaches the relevant tapered or conical clip configuration, and Applicant’s reliance on different elements, different labels, or asserted functional distinctions does not traverse the rejection. The rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10 is therefore maintained.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Prosecution Insights