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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “cavity” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The examiner does not see any drawing reference number or indication for the “cavity” in the claims and specification. No new matter should be entered.
Similarly, the first and second sets of line side contacts must be shown. The examiner does not see any drawing reference number for the first and second sets of “line side contacts” indicated in the claims and specification.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “spade connectors” in claim 5 and “support body” in various claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The “load side contact assembly” in various claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1& 15 see the drawing objection above. The examiner is not sure what constitutes the “cavity” as recited in the claims. There are numerous cavities in the line side contact assembly as shown in the applicant’s drawings. The examiner will interpret the claimed “cavity” to be more than one cavity.
Also, in these claims (including claim 18 lines 4, 12 and last line) the phrase “proximal direction” is not understood. As “proximal” is defined by GOOGLE define; “situated nearer to the center of the body or the point of attachment”. This definition does not have anything to do with direction. Maybe a word like longitudinal (e.g., as done in claim 15) would be more accurate; the examiner will interpret proximal in this way.
Claim 17 is not clear. The preamble to the parent claim (15) of this claim reads “An electrical receptacle comprising” which therefore defines the line side contact assembly as being part of the receptacle. How then can the line side contact assembly be removed from the receptacle. Maybe this claim should read what part of the receptacle the line side contact is separated from? The examiner will interpret in this way.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juds et al (US2017/0098908) in view of Malpiedi et al (US2021/0242613).
An auxiliary contact assembly for an industrial connector (¶0003 “power connectors”) comprising:
a line side contact assembly (“line side electrical receptacle 110” also 210, 310 etc.) comprising:
a cavity (e.g., fig. 1 114, 116 & 118 are all cavities) elongated in a proximal direction, having an open distal end, and having a plurality of inner side surfaces (e.g., embodiment of fig. 7, “sleeves 614,616,618” & 630); and
a plurality of line side contacts arranged on the inner side surfaces of the cavity (¶0074 “the line side electrical receptacle 110 includes…a number of electrical mating members, such as the example female conductors…sleeves 114,116,118”), wherein at least two of the line side contacts are on separate non-adjacent inner side surfaces (embodiment in fig. 12) at a first distance from the distal end of the cavity and wherein at least one of the plurality of line side contacts is on an intervening inner side surface between the separate non-adjacent inner side surfaces and at a second distance from the distal end; and a load side contact assembly (e.g., “load side electrical receptacle 160” 260, 360 etc.), comprising:
a support body having a plurality of outer side surfaces (e.g., fig. 5 at 400) and being elongated in the proximal direction (left to right or right to left), wherein the support body is shaped to be inserted into the cavity and wherein the outer side surfaces of the support body correspond with the inner side surfaces of the cavity (fig. 6 embodiment 560 load side into 510 line side); and
a plurality of load side contacts (534, 536, 564, 566 & 568) arranged on one or more outer side surfaces of the body (fig. 6) and positioned to contact corresponding ones of the plurality of line side contacts when the support body is inserted into the cavity (e.g., fig. 6 560 contacts mate with 510 contact sleeves).
Juds does not disclose a first distance and a second distance for the contacts or staggered contacts.
Malpiedi discloses first and second distances (figure 2, at 42 & 44) for the contacts of an industrial connector. In other words, “a staggered arrangement for the carrier 28” (Malpiedi ¶0018). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to stagger the contacts of Juds as taught by Malpiedi. A motivation for this staggering arrangement would be to provide keying or ensuring the correct orientation of the connector mating. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 4 Juds discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of line side wires connected with the line side contacts and a plurality load side wires connected with the load side contacts (e.g., fig. 1 at unnumbered lines).
Claim 2 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juds et al (US2017/0098908) in view of Malpiedi et al (US2021/0242613).
Malpiedi discloses that the cavity comprises eight not six inner side surfaces (fig. 1B), wherein a first set of three of the line side contacts are on four not three non-adjacent inner side surfaces at the first distance from the distal end, wherein a second set of four not three line side contacts are on the remaining inner side surfaces at the second distance from the distal end.
Juds in view of Malpiedi does not disclose the exact inner side surface configuration of the applicant’s claim 2, as best understood. At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to alter the configuration of the line side contacts of Juds in view of Malpiedi to an applicable and required configuration. A motivation for this would be to apply the invention to different requirements well known in this connector field.
This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale E; obvious to try-choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 3 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juds et al (US2017/0098908) in view of Malpiedi et al (US2021/0242613) with regard to claim 1 and further in view of Chang et al (US2025/0050827).
Neither Juds nor Malpiedi discloses the use of well-known leaf springs with complimentary contacts that deflect the leaf springs.
Chang discloses line side contacts that comprise leaf springs (222, fig. 2A), and wherein, when the body is inserted into the cavity, the load side contacts deflect the leaf springs (fig. 4B). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to use the industry known leaf springs for an electrical connection. A motivation for this use of leaf springs would be to use an electrical connector that is tried and true with a long record of success. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 15-17 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juds et al (US2017/0098908) in view of Malpiedi et al (US2021/0242613).
An electrical receptacle comprising:
a line side contact assembly (“line side electrical receptacle 110” also 210, 310 etc.) comprising:
a cavity (e.g., fig. 1 114, 116 & 118 are all cavities) elongated in a longitudinal direction having an open distal end having a plurality of inner side surfaces (e.g., embodiment of fig. 7, “sleeves 614,616,618” & 630); and
a plurality of line side contacts arranged on the inner side surfaces of the cavity (¶0074 “the line side electrical receptacle 110 includes…a number of electrical mating members, such as the example female conductors…sleeves 114,116,118”), wherein at least two of the line side contacts are on separate non-adjacent inner side surfaces (embodiment in fig. 12) at a first distance from the distal end of the cavity and wherein at least one of the plurality of line side contacts is on an intervening inner side surface between the separate non-adjacent inner side surfaces and at a second distance from the distal end;
a housing surrounding the line side contact assembly (fig. 23);
a line side contacting surface disposed across a portion of the housing (fig. 31 unnumbered far right flat surface),
wherein the open distal end of the cavity forms an opening in the line side contacting surface and the cavity (unnumbered fig. 31) extends in the proximal direction from the line side contacting surface (also, fig. 31 unnumbered far right flat surface);
one or more line electrodes (fig. 7 at 620) disposed within the housing proximal of the line side contacting surface (e.g., fig. 7 614, 616 & 618); and
one or more electrode openings in the line side contacting surface (unnumbered fig. 31), wherein the electrode openings corresponding to respective ones of the line electrodes (fig. 7).
Juds does not disclose a first distance and a second distances for the contacts.
Malpiedi discloses first and second distances (figure 2, at 42 & 44) for the contacts of an industrial connector. In other words, “a staggered arrangement for the carrier 28” (Malpiedi ¶0018). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to stagger the contacts of Juds as taught by Malpiedi. A motivation for this staggering arrangement would be to provide keying or ensuring the correct orientation of the connector mating. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 16 Juds discloses the receptacle of claim 15, wherein the open distal end of the cavity is positioned at a central location on the line side contacting surface (fig. 30) and wherein the electrode openings are positioned radially around the open distal end (fig. 30 see sectional of figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 Juds discloses the of claim 15, wherein the line side contact assembly is removably connected with the receptacle (figures 24 & 31-32 components can be disassembled).
Claims 18-20 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juds et al (US2017/0098908) in view of Malpiedi et al (US2021/0242613).
An electrical plug (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 660 etc.) comprising:
a load side contact assembly (figures 1-7, right hand plug with “pins”) comprising:
a support body (e.g., fig. 6 at 500) having a plurality of outer side surfaces having a proximal end (either side of 500 in fig. 6) and being elongated in the proximal direction (right left & left right), and
a plurality of load side contacts (534, 536, 564, 566 & 568) arranged on the outer side surfaces of the body (fig. 6), wherein at least two of the load side contacts are on separate non-adjacent outer side surfaces at a first distance from the proximal end of the body and wherein at least one of the plurality of load side contacts is on an outer side surface between the separate non-adjacent outer side surfaces and at a second distance from the proximal end;
a load side contacting surface(e.g., fig. 7 vertical line of 662 attached to 664, 666 & 668), wherein the body extends from the load side contacting surface in the proximal direction (fig. 7 left to right); and
one or more load electrodes extending from the load side contacting surface in the proximal direction (e.g., fig. 7 664, 666 & 668).
Juds does not disclose a first distance and a second distances for the contacts.
Malpiedi discloses first and second distances (figure 2, at 42 & 44) for the contacts of an industrial connector. In other words, “a staggered arrangement for the carrier 28” (Malpiedi ¶0018). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to stagger the contacts of Juds as taught by Malpiedi. A motivation for this staggering arrangement would be to provide keying or ensuring the correct orientation of the connector mating. This 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 19 Juds discloses the plug of claim 18, wherein the support body (e.g., fig. 22 right-side body) is positioned at a central location on the load side contacting surface and wherein the load electrodes (1764, 1766 & 1768) are positioned radially around the support body (e.g., fig. 30 electrodes inserted into unnumbered orifices).
Claim 20 Juds discloses the plug of claim 18, wherein the load side contact assembly is removably connected with the plug (e.g., pins can be replaced).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658