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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “44” has been used to designate both the depression in a plate member (see Figs. 7a – 7d) and a depression formed in a functional element (see Figs. 7e – 7f). Although these are both depressions, they are different parts and should be designated using unique reference numerals.
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. 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 Objections
Claims 37, 46, 47, 54, 62, 68 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37, line 1, recites, “type” should be deleted, because the word “type” is considered an indefinite expression. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(E). For the purposes of examination, the disclosure makes clear that the terminal receives a conductor by a conductor plugging into the terminal space, and the claim is interpreted as requiring a spring-loaded terminal for plugging in and connecting a conductor.
In claim 46, line 1, “said pressure surface” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 47, line 2, “second leg said angular pivoting leg” appears to be missing the word -of- and should read second leg of said angular pivoting leg.
In claim 54, line 2, “said support leg” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 62 is depends on itself, line 1, “claim 62” should be changed to -claim 61-.
In claim 68, line 2, “said pressure surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Only few of the deficiencies have been pointed out above, the Applicant is required to review specification, abstract and all the claims and make all necessary corrections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 37, 43, 46 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 1 of an instant application is broader than claims 1, 2 and 3 of US Patent.
“pressure surface” of the dependents claims 43, 46 and 68 are equivalent to that of claims 3 of the US patent.
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.
Claims 37 – 39, 41 –53, 55 – 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202016007200 U1 (“Benedick”).
Regarding claim 37, Benedick discloses a spring-loaded terminal (1) of a plug-in type for connecting a conductor, comprising (a) a busbar (5) for contacting the electrical conductor (2); (b) a clamping spring (6) which retains the electrical conductor in the terminal (see Fig. 4), said clamping spring having a pivotable clamping leg (7) which is pivotable in a pivoting direction (leg 7 pivots clockwise to clamp a conductor, see Figs. 1 and 2) and having a clamping edge (the distal edge of 7); (c) a retaining spring (9) including a pivoting leg (9 pivots about a second pivot axis, see Figs. 3 and 4) which retains the clamping spring in a latching state in an open position so that the conductor can be inserted into a contact area in a sliding direction (9 retains leg 7 on portion 18 so conductor 2 can be slid in from left to right, see the open position of Figs. 2 and 3), said pivoting leg including at least one retaining device (18) and said clamping leg including a latching device (16) which cooperates with said retaining device in the latching state of said clamping leg (see Figs. 2 and 3), said clamping leg being adjustable from the latching state into a clamping state in which said clamping leg is released from said retaining device and presses the conductor with said clamping edge of said clamping leg against said busbar (the clamping leg is released and clamps the conductor as seen in Fig. 4), said latching device of said clamping leg being spaced from said clamping edge of said clamping leg (16 is spaced from the distal edge of leg 7).
Regarding claim 38, Benedick discloses a restoring device (22) for pivoting said clamping leg from the clamping state to the latching state by displacing the restoring device against the pivoting direction (22 is pushed inward to push against leg 7 to move leg 7 from the clamping position seen in Fig. 4 to the open position seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 39, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device (18) of the pivoting leg (9) is not directly latched to said clamping edge of said clamping leg (18 latches to 16 which is spaced from the distal edge of 6).
Regarding claim 41, Benedick discloses wherein said clamping spring is formed one of individually and separately with said retaining spring (6 and 9 are one spring member). Examiner notes that formed “individually” with said retaining spring has been interpreted as requiring the clamping spring and retaining spring to be formed as one member.
Regarding claim 42, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device and said latching device have at least one corresponding chamfer (16, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 43, Benedick discloses wherein said clamping spring (6) has a support leg (8) with which it is supported on a corresponding abutment (8 is supported on an island portion of the housing, see Fig. 2) and said retaining spring has a pressure surface (10).
Regarding claim 44, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device (18) is formed as an integral flared tab of said pivoting leg (18 is a tab portion spread outward from portion 11 of leg 9).
Regarding claim 45, Benedick discloses wherein said pivoting leg (9) has an angular design (9 includes angled portions, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 46, Benedick discloses wherein said pressure surface (10) adjoins a first leg of said pivoting leg (10 is part of a first lower leg of member 9).
Regarding claim 47, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device (18) is designed as a latching edge (18 latches to 14) arranged on a second leg said angular pivoting leg (18 is on a second upper leg of member 9).
Regarding claim 48, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device (18) of said pivoting leg (9) comprises at least one hook formed integrally with said pivoting leg (18 is an integral portion of 9 and presents a surface bent at 90 degrees from 11 to present a perpendicular hook structure to latch onto 16).
Regarding claim 49, Benedick discloses wherein said retaining device of said pivoting leg comprises two hooks (there are two portions 18).
Regarding claim 50, Benedick discloses wherein each hook (18) is cut out and bent from said pivoting leg (18 is formed by a cutout portion at section 11 as seen in Fig. 1 and presents a perpendicular bent surface from portion 11 of the pivoting leg) to engage behind a corresponding edge on said clamping leg (18 engages a rear edge of 16), said corresponding edge being arranged at a distance from said clamping edge in a recess of said clamping leg (the edge of 16 is spaced from the distal edge of leg 7).
Regarding claim 51, Benedick discloses each hook (18) having a long leg (the face of the cutout section) and a short leg (the face of portion 18).
Regarding claim 52, Benedick discloses an angle R between said hook long leg and said short hook leg that is 90 degrees to 100 degrees (the angle between the aforementioned legs is 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 53, Benedick discloses herein said retaining device (18) of said pivoting leg (9) comprises a web of said pivoting leg (18 is created by forming slender member 11 to create the two portions 18).
Regarding claim 55, Benedick discloses wherein said pivoting leg (9) includes a first downwardly bent leg (leg portion including 10 and 12 which is bent down from near portion 18) and a second, upwardly bent leg (leg portion near the lead line of numeral 20 in Fig. 1 which is bent upwards from the bottom of portion 8) which are integrally connected to one another by a bend (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 56, Benedick discloses wherein said pivoting leg (7) contains an opening (opening between the bottom of 14 and the distal end of leg 7)) in which said clamping leg engages in the latching state of said clamping leg (18 engages in the opening space when latched thereto).
Regarding claim 57, Benedick discloses wherein said opening has a constriction (portion 16 is tapered which makes the opening become narrower past the initial wide opening).
Regarding claim 58, Benedick discloses wherein said clamping leg (9) has a waist portion (18) geometrically corresponding to said constriction (18 is shaped to engage behind 16 within the opening space in a spot further within the opening than the widest portion), whereby said clamping leg can move freely through said opening (18 moves freely to latch behind 16).
Regarding claim 59, Benedick shows said latching device is formed as a recess formed in said clamping leg (the latching surface is formed in a recess between 16 and portion 6).
Regarding claim 60, Benedick discloses wherein said clamping spring (6) and said retaining spring (9) are formed from a rectangular blank of constant width (6 and 9 are from a same plate which has a constant plate width, and are capable of being made from a rectangular plate).
Regarding claim 61, Benedick discloses wherein said latching device (16) is formed integrally (see Fig. 1) with said clamping leg (6).
Regarding claim 62, Benedick discloses wherein said latching device (16) is flared (see Fig. 1) from said clamping leg (6).
Regarding claim 63, Benedick discloses wherein said latching device (16) of said clamping leg (6) is designed as a tab (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 64, Benedick discloses wherein said support leg (8) is guided to said busbar (see the bottom of 8 being arranged to the right side of busbar 5).
Regarding claim 65, Benedick discloses wherein said pivoting leg contains a cutout (20) which is defined by said retaining device of said pivoting leg (18 defines edges of cutout 20).
Regarding claim 66, Benedick discloses wherein said restoring device (22) is arranged between said clamping spring and the conductor in the latching state (when the conductor is being released 22 enters the housing and pushes leg 7 into the latching state and is between 7 and 2 at that time) and is displaceable in and against the sliding direction (22 enters the housing from left to right).
Regarding claim 67, Benedick discloses a leaf spring which supports said retaining spring (9 is integrally supported by leaf spring portion 11)..
Regarding claim 68, Benedick discloses a stop element (10) arranged on said retaining spring (10 stops the conductor 2), said pressure surface being arranged on said stop element (the upper surface of 10 is the pressure surface to release the latch).
Regarding claim 69, Benedick discloses a terminal block (Fig. 1) having at least one spring-loaded terminal according to claim 37 (see above).
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 40 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedick.
Regarding claim 40, Benedick discloses wherein said latching device of said clamping leg is formed on said clamping leg at a distance from said clamping edge (see Fig. 1). Benedick does not specifically disclose wherein the distance is greater than 1 mm.
However, regarding the particular dimensions from the latching device to the clamping edge, to the extent that Benedick does not specify exact dimensions, workable dimensions of the distance would have been a matter of routine experimentation in order to achieve a compact spring terminal connector while positioning the latching device away from the clamping edge in order to project towards a center of the connector device to meet the latch of the pivoting leg. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 54, Benedick discloses wherein said pivoting leg has an angle y relative to said support leg (see the angle between the portion near the lead line of numeral 20 in Fig. 3 and portion 8). Benedick appears to disclose wherein said angle y is 50° to 70°, but the drawings are not necessarily to scale. However, it would have been obvious to make a connector according to the drawings of Benedick, utilizing the angle shown in the Figures, because such an angle allows the pivoting leg to project upward towards a middle of an interior of the connector in order to be positioned to latch to a pivoting clamping leg and also in order to create space for the distal end of the pivoting leg to move when pushed by an incoming conductor. Such a constructed connector would have the claimed angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. 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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights