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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 12-17 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the elastic deformation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contacts" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 6, the limitation “a mounting hole” does not tie in with any structural limitations in the claims. For example, it is unclear as to what assemblies the mounting hole belong to. Is it belong to a PCB or an alignment bar or a slide-fit offsetting action element or a mounting bracket ??? because the specification and the claims do not clearly disclose the structure location of the mounting hole. (NOTE: for purpose of examination, Examiner interprets as “a mounting hole of a mounting bracket”).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the protective cover" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the cover" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 4538866 A).
In regard to claims 1, 4, Johnson discloses a slide-fit electrical contact termination offsetting assembly (fig. 1) comprising an electrical connector 14 having a plurality of contact terminations 25 placed into a corresponding footprint on a PCB 10; the slide-fit electrical contact termination offsetting assembly is characterized by:
an alignment bar 26 positioned on the PCB 10 having a corresponding plurality of holes 30 housing spaces to allow for the elastic deformation of the contact terminations 25,
a slide-fit offsetting action element 38 mounted in offset position over a mounting hole 42, wherein the slide-fit offsetting action element 38 is in contact with the alignment bar 26, and
a mounting mechanism 36, 24, 22 to retain the connector 14 in position on the PCB 10, wherein the mounting mechanism interacts with the slide-fit offsetting action element 38; and
wherein the mounting mechanism displaces laterally the slide-fit offsetting action element 38, which subsequently forces the alignment bar 26 to slide forcing the contact terminations 25 to jam into the PCB footprint, and the contact terminations are elastically deformed in the holes 30 within the alignment bar 26, to achieve effective electromechanical connection between the contact terminations 25 and the PCB 10.
However, Johnson discloses the holes 30 in the alignment bar 26 are not chamfered but are wide enough to allow certain deformation. The housing cavities of the connector, however, in contact with the alignment bar are chamfered/tapered holes 44 and these align the deformation of the contact terminations 25 when the contact terminations 25 are inserted into the PCB footprint (see Fig. 5).
Therefore, it appears that the chamfered holes in the alignment bar 26 are one of several straight forward possibilities from which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed.
In regard to claim 2, Johnson discloses the contact terminations are 90° bent (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 3, Johnson discloses the contact terminations 25 are solid pin contacts or terminations with a round cross-section, and the footprint is a plurality of plated or metalized through holes in the PCB 10 or any other cylindrical socket/female contact (col. 2, lines 16-20 and 42-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson.
In regard to claim 6, Johnson discloses a slide-fit electrical contact termination offsetting assembly comprising an electrical connector 14 having at least one plurality of pin contacts 25 placed into a corresponding footprint on a PCB 10 with zero insertion force; the slide-fit electrical contact termination offsetting assembly is characterized by:
a locking mechanism 36, 24, 22 to align the pin contacts 25 with the footprint and allow the insertion into the footprint with zero insertion force,
a slide-fit offsetting action element 38 configured into the locking mechanism, and the pin contacts 25 are attached to a support element 46, 26 that comprises a corresponding plurality of cavities 30 aside each pin contact; and
wherein the locking mechanism retain the connector 14 on the PCB 10, and subsequently forces the slide-fit offsetting action element 38 to displace laterally against the PCB 10 forcing the pin contacts 25 to jam into the PCB footprint, and the pin contacts 25 are elastically deformed in the cavity 30 within the support element 26, to achieve effective electromechanical connection between the contact terminations 25 and the PCB 10.
In regard to claim 7, Johnson discloses the connector 14 is a single-piece connector having on both sides of the connector at right angle orientation to each other.
In regard to claim 8, Johnson discloses the PCB 10.
The recitation that “the PCB is a daughter card PCB” has not given a significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 9, Johnson discloses the cavities 30 allow the pin contacts 25 to deform elastically without shear (col. 2, line 56, col. 3, line 3)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 5, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest the mounting mechanism is a screw to retain the connector in position through a mounting bracket secured to the body of the connector. In regard to claim 10, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest the locking mechanism is a guiding lock tab that locks in place on the PCB via a lock lid. In regard to claim 12, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest the protective cover retracts towards the connector and the pin contacts protrude through the cover into the PCB footprint while the offsetting guide pins interact with the inner side of the protective guiding cover and cause the offsetting action to laterally deform the pin contacts into the cavities of the cover.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (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 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.
Tdt
6/21/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights