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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities: the first “a” of claim 1 is not capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the led lighting set", “and projection equipped…”, “for fixing with the connector”, “allow the positioning of the screw”, and “said connector with the pre-assembled electrical terminal” in the claim language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. This claim has been examined as best interpreted (see rejection of claim 1, below).
Claims 3 and 6 recite “the bas-relief”, which also do not have antecedent basis. Claim 6 has been examined as if dependent on claim 5, which positively recites a bas-relief.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallai [US 8678632] in view of Mostoller [US 9172162].
As to claim 1, as best understood, Gallai discloses a constructive arrangement in electrical connection applied in vehicle headlight [see figure 4] having a headlight [100] equipped with a housing [106, 124 and 160], lens [150], and electronic board [104] with an led lighting set [102], characterized in that the housing is internally equipped with projections [vertical portions in figure 4 of 106 and 130], and a projection [140] equipped with an opening [142], and holes [this is the opening as it extends downwards to 144] that allow the positioning of the screws [132] for fixing with a connector [170 and 172] positioned on the rear portion of the housing with the projection [see figure 4]. Gallai fails to explicitly disclose wherein said connector with pre-assembled electrical terminals positioned parallel to the rear face of the housings.
Mostoller teaches that implementing a connector with pre-assembled electrical terminals positioned parallel to a rear face of a lighting unit or housing was well known [see figure 1, wires 106 connect to electrical terminals which are parallel with 108].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the electrical terminal orientation as taught by Mostoller with the lighting unit in Gallai, as such configurations reduce the depth of the electrical components and allow for more compact form when installed [see Gallai, column 5, lines 14-19]
As to claim 2, Gallai discloses a constructive arrangement in electrical connection applied in vehicle headlight, according to claim 1, characterized in that the projections allow the positioning and fixing of the electronic board using a screw [see figure 4, note that screws holder 140, 106, and 104 together].
As to claim 3, Gallai discloses a constructive arrangement in electrical connection applied to vehicle headlight, according to claim 1, characterized in that the projections is equipped with a grooves [these are portions on left and right side surrounding 130, figure 4] that allows positioning next to a bas-relief [such a 148, 146, note that how the positioning occurs is not claimed and the bas relief is not structurally defined].
As to claim 4, Gallai discloses a constructive arrangement in electrical connection applied in vehicle headlight, according to claim 1, characterized in that the connector is equipped with side projections with a hole that allow the positioning of the screws to fix the connector to the housings [portion of 172 to the right of 170, which has a hole holding screw 142 which fixes the connector and housings, see figure 4].
As to claim 5, Gallai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is equipped with a bas-relief having a set of grooves that allows the positioning of the electrical terminals that connect to the electronic board. Mostoller teaches the configuration wherein the connector is equipped with a bas-relief having a set of grooves that allows the positioning of the electrical terminals that connect to the electronic board was well known [see 132, figure 3]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the connector as taught by Mostoller with the lighting unit as taught by Gallai, in order to improve alignment when connecting the connector [see Gallai, column 5, lines 14-19].
As to claim 6, Gallai fails to explicitly discloses wherein the bas-relief allows the connection of the connectors to the projection of the housing. Mostoller teaches the configuration wherein the bas-relief allows the connection of the connectors to the projection of the housing was well known [see 3, connector slides into bas relief grooves]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the connector as taught by Mostoller with the lighting unit as taught by Gallai, in order to improve alignment when connecting the connector [see Gallai, column 5, lines 14-19].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallai in view of Mostoller in further view of Park [US 2012/0015537].
As to claim 7, Gallai in view of Mostoller fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector when connected to the housing receives the application of a liquid resin to seal the assembly. Park teaches wherein a connector when connected to the housing receives the application of a liquid resin to seal the assembly was well known [see abstract, describing process for adhering cables and connectors]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the sealing process and structure by Park with the connector as taught by Gallai in view of Mostoller, in order to provide for a more stable connection [see Gallai, column 5, lines 14-19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kurahashi [see PTO-892 for references] teaches an alternative embodiment of the connector as claimed. Similar constructive arrangements to applicant’s claimed invention exist in Norris, Hemingway, Ishikiriyama, Luo and Ninomiya.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875