DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US 10060612 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a contact-making arrangement for electrically conductive connection between a clamping connector (20, also referred to herein as the “terminal”) and a joining partner (10), comprising
a printed circuit board (30) with a cutout (labeled CU in annotated figure 1 below), wherein an x-axis and y-axis perpendicular thereto are defined in a plane of the printed circuit board,
a joining partner (10), and
a clamping connector (20) which is arranged on the cutout and has at least one
flexible contact element (22), wherein the joining partner can be inserted through the clamping connector and into the cutout with simultaneous contact-connection and deformation of the at least one contact element.
Implicitly , the inserted joining partner can be moved parallel to the y-axis in a
manner sliding on the at least one contact element. To the extent that such relationship is not inherent, it would have been obvious to size the joining partner 10 to fit within the terminal to allow movement in the Y direction as a matter of obvious engineering choice to facilitate ease of assembly of the combined elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
1279
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1422
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
824
930
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, implicitly, the inserted joining partner can be moved parallel to the x-axis with simultaneous deformation of the at least one contact element. To the extent that such relationship is not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to size the terminal and joint partner such that a small degree of misalignment between the location of the terminal and the location of the joining partner is allowed for in the X and Y axes as a matter of engineering design choice.
Per claim 5 the clamping connector comprises a sheet metal, in particular a punched plate, which lies flat on the printed circuit board (pins 211 lie flat on the board).
Per claim 6 the at least one flexible contact element comprises a notch (labeled “notch” above).
Per claim 7 the clamping connector comprises a frame (labeled “frame” above) which surrounds a hole (212) for piercing receiving the joining partner wherein the frame is integral with the at least one contact element.
Regarding claim 8, the clamping connector is mounted and contact-connected as a surface-mounted device on the printed circuit board by surface mounting.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses an electronic assembly comprising a housing (labeled HS in annotated figure 2 above) and at least one component (40) which is arranged in the housing and a contact-making arrangement as set out regarding claim 1, wherein
the joining partner is electrically conductively connected to the component, in particular projecting out of the component, and wherein the printed circuit board is inserted in the housing and the joining partner is inserted in the clamping connector.
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses implicitly a method for assembling an electronic assembly comprising the steps of:
providing a housing (labeled HS above) and a contact-making arrangement according to claim 1, arranging a component (40) in the housing wherein the joining partner 10 of the
contact-making arrangement is electrically conductively connected to the component, in particular projecting out of the component, and inserting the printed circuit board 30 of the contact-making arrangement into the housing with simultaneous attachment of the clamping connector on the joining partner. To the extent that such steps are not explicitly stated or inherent, they would have been obvious given the final assembly as shown in figure 2, in order to provide the final assembly as shown in figure 2. The reason would have been to simplify assembly of the device. "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, the joining partner projects out of the component.
Regarding claim 12, the sheet metal plate is punched from sheet metal.
Regarding claim 13 the joining partner projects out of the component.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Buscella US 4968271.
Regarding claim 2, the Chen joining partner 10 appears to be a blade in figure 10. To the extent that this is not explicitly stated, Buscella discloses a blade joining partner, it would have been obvious to have the Chen joining partner 10 be a blade as taught in Buscella. The reason would have been to maximize the contact surface between the terminal and the joining partner as was well known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, The Chen joining partner 10 appears to be a blade in figure 10, having two opposing contact surfaces.
To the extent that this is not explicitly stated, Buscella discloses a blade joining partner, it would have been obvious to have the Chen joining partner 10 be a blade as taught in Buscella. The reason would have been to maximize the contact surface between the terminal and the joining partner as was well known in the art. As such, the inserted joining partner would have two opposing contact surfaces and would be only contact-connected at these two contact surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. 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.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights