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
2. 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 21-22 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 21 recites, “the peaks,” and, “the valleys.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes they will be interpreted as, “peaks,” and, “valleys.”
Claim 22 inherits the deficiencies of claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 19-21, and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over D1 (CN 210535878).
Regarding claim 1: D1 (Figure 2 and marked version of figure 1 below) teaches a metal reed structure, comprising: a first side plate (i.e. A1) and a second side plate (i.e. B1) disposed opposite to each other, and a third side plate (i.e. A2) and a fourth side plate (i.e. B2) disposed opposite to each other, wherein the first side plate and the third side plate are located in a same plane, and the second side plate and the fourth side plate are located in a same plane; at least one pair of first connecting reed (i.e. 3 on A plate) and second connecting reed (i.e. 3 on B plate) disposed opposite to each other, wherein two ends (i.e. 302, 302) of the first connecting reed are connected to the first side plate and the third side plate respectively, and two ends (i.e. 302, 302) of the second connecting reed are connected to the second side plate and the fourth side plate respectively; and at least one pair of first cantilever reed (i.e. 2) and second cantilever reed (i.e. 2) disposed opposite to each other, wherein one end (i.e. 203) of the first cantilever reed is connected to the first side plate, the other end (i.e. 202) of the first cantilever reed forms a free end, one end (i.e. 203) of the second cantilever reed is connected to the second side plate, and the other end (i.e. 202) of the second cantilever reed forms a free end.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: D1 (Figure 2) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein the first connecting reed and the second connecting reed are disposed opposite to each other in a mirror image manner, or the first cantilever reed and the second cantilever reed are disposed opposite to each other in a mirror image manner.
Regarding claim 4: D1 (Figure 2) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein along an extension direction of the first connecting reed and the second connecting reed, longitudinal sections of the first connecting reed and the second connecting reed are wavy, and longitudinal sections of the first cantilever reed and the second cantilever reed are wavy.
Regarding claim 5: D1 (Figures 3-4) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 4, wherein at least at a peak or a valley of the first connecting reed and/or the second connecting reed, a first boss (i.e. boss at 302) raised towards an outer side of the peak or the valley is disposed; and at least at a peak or a valley of the first cantilever reed and/or the second cantilever reed, a second boss (i.e. boss at 203) raised towards an outer side of the peak or the valley is disposed.
Regarding claim 6: D1 (Figures 2-4) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 4, wherein a minimum vertical distance between a peak (i.e. 302) and a valley (i.e. 301) of the first connecting reed or the second connecting reed is 1-12 times a thickness of the first connecting reed or the second connecting reed (i.e. as can be reasoned from figures 2-4); or a minimum vertical distance between a peak and a valley of the first cantilever reed or the second cantilever reed is 1-12 times a thickness of the first cantilever reed or the second cantilever reed.
Regarding claim 8: D1 (Figures 2-4) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 4, wherein a distance between adjacent peaks (i.e. 302) of the first connecting reed or the second connecting reed is 3-32 times a thickness of the first connecting reed or the second connecting reed (i.e. as can be reasoned from figures 2-4); or a distance between adjacent peaks of the first cantilever reed or the second cantilever reed is 3-32 times a thickness of the first cantilever reed or the second cantilever reed.
Regarding claim 10: D1 (marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein a terminal slot (i.e. between A and B plates) is formed between the first side plate and the second side plate, between the third side plate and the fourth side plate, between the first connecting reed and the second connecting reed, and between the first cantilever reed and the second cantilever reed.
PNG
media_image2.png
24
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: D1 (Figure 1) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, comprising: a plurality of first connecting reeds and a plurality of first cantilever reeds, wherein the plurality of first connecting reeds and the plurality of first cantilever reeds are disposed at intervals; and a plurality of second connecting reeds and a plurality of second cantilever reeds, wherein the plurality of second connecting reeds and the plurality of second cantilever reeds are disposed at intervals.
Regarding claim 12: D1 (Figure 1) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 11, wherein a distance between the first connecting reed and the first cantilever reed adjacent to each other is 1%-100% of a width of the first cantilever reed; and a distance between the second connecting reed and the second cantilever reed adjacent to each other is 1%- 100% of a width of the second cantilever reed.
Regarding claim 13: D1 (marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein the first side plate, the second side plate, the third side plate, and the fourth side plate are connected, in an extension direction thereof, with at least one side hanger lug (i.e. L) with a U- shaped section.
Regarding claim 14: D1 (Marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein the first side plate and the second side plate are connected, in a side direction thereof, with at least one top hanger lug (i.e. L) with a U-shaped section.
Regarding claim 15: D1 (Marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein the third side plate and the fourth side plate are connected, in a side direction thereof, with at least one plate-shaped connecting bridge (i.e. L).
Regarding claim 19: D1 (Marked version of figure 1 above) teaches an electrical connector, comprising a female terminal of U-shaped structure, a male terminal of sheet shape, and the metal reed structure according to claim 1, wherein the female terminal is provided with a top-end opening and provided with side openings on two sides of the female terminal, and a top hanger lug (i.e. M) of the metal reed is set to be connected to the top-end opening or one of the side openings.
Regarding claim 20: D1 (Marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the electrical connector according to claim 19, wherein a side hanger lug (i.e. L) of the metal reed is set to be connected to the top-end opening, one of the side openings, or the side openings on the two sides separately.
Regarding claim 21: D1 (Marked version of figure 1 above) teaches the electrical connector according to claim 19, wherein the first connecting reed, the second connecting reed, the first cantilever reed, and the second cantilever reed are disposed in the female terminal, inner sides of the peaks (i.e. 302, 302, 203, 203) of the first connecting reed, the second connecting reed, the first cantilever reed, and the second cantilever reed are in contact with a plugging and connecting surface of the male terminal, and outer sides of the valleys (i.e. 301, 301, 302, 302) are in contact with an inner surface of the female terminal.
Regarding claim 26: D1 (Figure 1) teaches the electrical connector according to claim 19, wherein the metal reed is integrally formed by stamping a plate-shaped material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 16 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Regarding claim 16: D1 teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein a material of the metal reed structure comprises one or more selected from nickel, cadmium, zirconium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, tin, titanium, zinc, copper, silver, gold, phosphorus, tellurium, beryllium, and lead.
However, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select any of the materials listed in the claim to form the reed with, as these are well-known materials commonly used in the art for building conductive structures with spring elements. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 22: D1 teaches the electrical connector according to claim 21, but does not specifically teach wherein an elastic force applied to the male terminal by the first connecting reed or the second connecting reed is 0.3N-98 N; or an elastic force applied to the male terminal by the first cantilever reed or the second cantilever reed is 0.3N-98 N.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a termperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a termperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the reed taught by D1 with the desired force output so as to optimize an increase in contact pressure without damaging any components.
Claims 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and Tyler (US 2012/0156947 A1).
Regarding claim 17: D1 teaches the metal reed structure according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein at least part of a surface of the metal reed is provided with a plating layer.
However, Tyler (See paragraph [0033]) teaches wherein at least part of a surface of the metal reed is provided with a plating layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reed structure taught by D1 to have a plating layer as taught by Tyler so as to improve corrosion resistance and conductivity while managing material costs.
Regarding claim 18: D1 and Tyler teach the metal reed structure according to claim 17, Tyler (See paragraph [0033]) teaches wherein a material of the plating layer comprises one or more selected from gold, silver, nickel, tin, zinc, tin-lead alloy, silver-antimony alloy, palladium, palladium-nickel alloy, graphite silver, graphene silver, hard silver, and silver-gold-zirconium alloy.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Christopher 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights