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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EUROPE on 08/14/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 23191280.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (US 2005/0020136), in view of Kawamura (US 2019/0305446).
Regarding claim 1: Johannes teaches an electrical connection system for automotive applications (see Fig. 1 and Para. 0054), comprising: an outer housing 22 defining a mating direction (e.g. vertical direction); and a female terminal 18 comprising a first elongate portion (at 20; Fig. 2) oriented substantially parallel to the mating direction and being received at least partially within a hollow portion of the outer housing 22 (see Fig. 2), a second elongate portion (at 18; Fig. 2) oriented in a different direction than the mating direction (see Fig. 2), and a bent portion 44 arranged between the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion (see Fig. 2), wherein the first elongate portion (at 20; Fig. 2) has a receiving portion 58 opposite to the bent portion for mating with a corresponding male terminal 50 (see Figs. 2-5), and wherein the bent portion 44 has a supporting member 94 (e.g. left and right extruding portions above 44; Fig. 2) for supporting the female terminal 18 on a surface of the outer housing 22 such that movement of the female terminal 18 in the outer housing 22 is substantially prevented (see Fig. 3).
Johannes does not explicitly teach the supporting member for supporting the female terminal on a surface of the outer housing such that movement of the female terminal in the outer housing is substantially prevented.
Kawamura teaches a supporting member 34 for supporting a terminal 26 on a surface of a housing 37 such that movement of the terminal 26 in the housing 37 is substantially prevented (see Figs. 1B-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with a supporting member for supporting the female terminal on a surface of the outer housing such that movement of the female terminal in the outer housing is substantially prevented as taught by Kawamura into the electrical connection system of Johannes in order to achieve the advantage of mechanically fixing the terminal within the housing and preventing unwanted movement.
Regarding claim 2: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the supporting member 34 is arranged such that a free edge of the supporting member contacts the surface at least partially (see Fig. 6 of Kawamura).
Regarding claim 3: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the supporting member 34 is bent in a mating direction and extends from a second elongate portion 30 such that the free edge substantially abuts the surface along its length in a direction of the second elongate portion (see Figs. 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 4: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the supporting member 34 has a wing shape (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the supporting member 34 is integrally formed with the female terminal as a single piece (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the female terminal 26 and the supporting member 34 are made from stamped and bent sheet metal (see Para. 0048).
Regarding claim 7: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the surface of the outer housing 37 is provided with a corresponding recess 40 so as to accommodate the supporting member 34 at least partially (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the supporting member 34 comprises a slit on an edge facing the second elongate portion, the slit extending along an elongate direction of the second elongate portion (see Fig. 6 for slit adjacent to supporting member 34).
Regarding claim 9: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Kawamura further teaches wherein the slit starts in proximity of an intersection of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion and extends in a direction along the second elongate portion (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the length of the slit: Kawamura discloses a slit having a length but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the slit extending to at least 5% of a length of the supporting member in a direction along the second elongate portion and wherein the slit extends to at most 80% of the length of the supporting member in a direction along the second elongate portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of the slit extending to at least 5% of a length of the supporting member in a direction along the second elongate portion and wherein the slit extends to at most 80% of the length of the supporting member in a direction along the second elongate portion is to reduce material costs and ease of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 11: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the bending radius: Kawamura discloses a bending radius having a length but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion intersect in the bent portion with a bending radius of between 0.05 mm and 0.8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion intersect in the bent portion with a bending radius of between 0.05 mm and 0.8 mm is for ease of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 12: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the width: Kawamura discloses a width in a direction perpendicular to the second elongate portion towards the surface but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a width in a direction perpendicular to the second elongate portion towards the surface of at least 0.2 mm and wherein the supporting member has a width in a direction perpendicular to the second elongate portion towards the surface of at most 4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of the supporting member having a width in a direction perpendicular to the second elongate portion towards the surface of at least 0.2 mm and wherein the supporting member has a width in a direction perpendicular to the second elongate portion towards the surface of at most 4 mm is for cost savings while still maintaining mechanical integrity.
Regarding claim 13: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the length: Kawamura discloses a length in a direction along the second elongate portion but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the supporting member having a length in a direction along the second elongate portion of at least 0.4 mm and wherein the supporting member has a length in a direction along the second elongate portion of at most 4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of a length in a direction along the second elongate portion of at least 0.4 mm and wherein the supporting member has a length in a direction along the second elongate portion of at most 4 mm is for cost savings while still maintaining mechanical integrity.
Regarding claim 14: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the bend angle of the first and second elongate portions: Kawamura discloses the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion intersect in the bent portion by an angle but does not disclose a particular value for this parameter. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion intersect in the bent portion by an angle of at least 60 and by an angle of at most 120°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion intersect in the bent portion by an angle of at least 60 and by an angle of at most 120° is for ease of manufacturing and assembling.
Regarding claim 15: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the surface is a top surface arranged on an end of the outer housing opposite to the receiving portion and substantially perpendicular to the mating direction (see Figs. 1-2 of Johannes and Fig. 2 of Kawamura).
Regarding claim 16: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the bent portion encompasses a portion of the female terminal of at least 1 time of a bending radius of an intersection of an extension of the first elongate portion and an extension of the second elongate portion (see Figs. 1-2 of Johannes and Fig. 2 of Kawamura).
Regarding claim 17: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the bent portion encompasses a portion of the female terminal of at most 20 times of a bending radius of an intersection of an extension of the first elongate portion and an extension of the second elongate portion (see Figs. 1-2 of Johannes and Fig. 2 of Kawamura).
Regarding claim 18: Johannes, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the bent portion has two supporting members arranged substantially symmetrically on opposite sides of the bent portion, wherein the surface of the outer housing is provided with two corresponding recesses arranged substantially symmetrically on opposite sides of the bent portion so as to accommodate the two supporting members at least partially (see Fig. 2 of Kawamura).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neale (US 7,351,089), in view of Kawamura (US 2019/0305446).
Regarding claim 19: Neale teaches a method for assembling an electrical connection system (see Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing an electrical connection system having an outer housing 16 defining a mating direction and a female terminal 26 comprising a first elongate portion oriented substantially parallel to the mating direction (at 26; Fig. 1) and being received at least partially within a hollow portion of the outer housing (see Fig. 1), a second elongate portion (at 24; Fig. 1) oriented in a different direction than the mating direction (see Fig. 1), and a bent portion arranged between the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the first elongate portion has a receiving portion opposite to the bent portion for mating with a corresponding male terminal (see Figs. 1-3), and providing a cover 28 on top of the surface of the outer housing 16 for covering the outer housing (see Figs. 2-3) and the female terminal 26 at least partially (Figs. 2-3); and providing an overmold 12 on top of the cover 28 configured to accommodate the cover and a wire at least partially (see Figs. 2-3).
Neale does not explicitly teach the bent portion has a supporting member for supporting the female terminal on a surface of the outer housing such that movement of the female terminal in the outer housing is substantially prevented.
Kawamura teaches a bent portion has a supporting member 34 for supporting a terminal 26 on a surface of a housing 37 such that movement of the terminal 26 in the housing is substantially prevented (see Figs. 1B-2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the bent portion having a supporting member for supporting the female terminal on a surface of the outer housing such that movement of the female terminal in the outer housing is substantially prevented as taught by Kawamura into the electrical connection system of Johannes in order to achieve the advantage of mechanically fixing the terminal within the housing and preventing unwanted movement.
Regarding claim 20: Neale, in view of Kawamura, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches further comprising: providing a sealing element 27 between the overmold and the outer housing (see Figs. 1-3); and connecting the wire to the second elongate portion at an end portion thereof opposite the bent portion of the female terminal (see Figs. 1-3 of Neale).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for pertinent prior art, the following references being of closest relevance:
Ikeda (US 2013/0217262) teaches a terminal having two supporting portions on opposite sides and fixed to a housing;
Glick (US 2004/0002248) teaches an electrical connector comprising a female terminal having a bend between a mating and wire connecting side and positioned within a housing assembly;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
