DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piperato et al. US 3253252 (“Piperato”). Regarding claim 1, Piperato discloses a terminal block (the combination of two or more connector elements, e.g., 32a and 32b) for use with (i.e., capable of use with) an electronic module, the terminal block comprising:
an electrically insulative housing 34, the electrically insulative housing including:
a plurality of wire receiving apertures (labeled A1 and A2 below) a front side of the electrically insulative housing, each of the plurality of wire receiving apertures is configured to accommodate an electrical wire 56 optionally extending into a corresponding one of the plurality of wire receiving apertures;
one or more first attachment features (labeled SLT on adjacent block 32d) on a first lateral side (labeled LS1) of the electrically insulative housing, each of the one or more first attachment features of the electrically insulative housing configured to releasably connect to a corresponding attachment feature of the electronic module in order to releasably mount the electrically insulative housing to the electronic module; and
a plurality of electrical terminals 50 housed by the electrically insulative housing, each of the plurality of electrical terminals configured to releasably receive and make an electrical connection with an electrical wire that is optionally moved into a corresponding one of the plurality of wire receiving apertures of the electrically insulative housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
952
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2 each of the one or more first attachment features on the first lateral side of the electrically insulative housing comprise a receiving slot configured to receive an enlarged head of a corresponding attachment feature of the electronic module.
Per claim 3 the electrically insulative housing further comprises one or more second attachment features (labeled ENH above) on a second lateral side (labeled LS2 above) of the electrically insulative housing opposite the first lateral side, each of the one or more second attachment features of the electrically insulative housing comprising an enlarged head that is configured to releasably connect with a corresponding first attachment feature of another identical terminal block.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piperato in view of Vellucci US 10249997. Regarding claim 7, Piperato does not disclose that one of the plurality of electrical terminals is electrically coupled to at least one other of the plurality of electrical terminals. Vellucci discloses a cable 100 for connecting one terminal to another. It would have been obvious to couple one Piperato terminal 50 with another terminal 50 in an attached element 32 forming block 30, by using Piperato cable(s) 100, such as by clamping Piperato probes 80 in desired clamping terminals 50, or alternatively via connecting desired terminals 14 in attached terminal block 12 via the Vellucci cable(s) 100. The reason would have been to close a circuit(s) between such terminals as was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Per claim 9, as combined per claim 7, one of the plurality of electrical terminals is electrically coupled to at least one other of the plurality of electrical terminals through a resistor (Vellucci at 70).
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeft et al. US 6556411 (“Hoeft”). Regarding claim 7, Piperato does not disclose that one of the plurality of electrical terminals is electrically coupled to at least one other of the plurality of electrical terminals. Hoeft discloses a conductive element 13 for connecting one terminal to another. It would have been obvious to couple one or more Piperato terminals 50 to one or more other terminals 50 in a Piperato block 30, such as by using a conductive element as taught in Hoeft at 13. For example, it would have been obvious to use the Hoeft element 13 to attach to plural spades 58 of the Piperato block 30. The reason would have been, for example, to provide a common ground for the terminals, as taught in Hoeft. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Per claim 8, as modified per claim 7, one of the plurality of Piperato electrical terminals is electrically shorted to at least one other of the plurality of electrical terminals.
Per claim 10, as modified per claim 7, it would have been obvious to have all the
all of the plurality of Piperato electrical terminals electrically shorted together, using a commoning element such as taught at Hoeft element 13. The reason would have been to provide a common ground as was known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 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. Claims 12-20 are allowable. Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose the invention as claimed including that each of the one or more legs include a score feature that facilitates cutting or snapped off a corresponding leg when the terminal block is to be mounting to an electronic module that is mounted to the mounting wall.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose the invention as claimed including that strain relief features include a zip tie aperture for receiving a zip tie for use in securing one or more wires to the electronics module housing . . . each of the one or more first attachment
features of the terminal block configured to releasably connect to a corresponding strain relief feature of the electronics module housing . . . .”
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