Bal Seal Engineering, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2020005740 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/612,664 06/02/2017 Derek Changsrivong 1129-150.101 6622
22145 7590 03/01/2021
Klein, O''Neill & Singh, LLP
30 CORPORATE PARK
SUITE 211
IRVINE, CA 92606
EXAMINER
BAILLARGEON, PAUL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEREK CHANGSRIVONG and TONY QUACH
Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–18 and 21–26. See Final Act. 1. We
conducted a telephonic hearing on February 18, 2021. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bal Seal Engineering,
Inc. 2. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to electrical connectors with linear springs and
related methods. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
16. A connector assembly comprising:
a housing comprising a body with a wall thickness, an
exterior surface, and an interior surface defining a bore, the
bore having a lengthwise axis;
a pin comprising a tapered insertion end and an exterior
surf ace defining an exterior diameter;
a canted coil spring length comprising a plurality of
interconnected coils all canted along a same direction, the
canted coil spring length having free ends that are not
connected positioned in a slot, and wherein the spring length is
aligned substantially parallel to the lengthwise axis of the bore
and located between and in contact with the housing and the pin
to complete an electrical path; and
wherein the pin, the housing, and the canted coil spring
length are made from a same electrically conductive material or
from different electrically conductive materials, and wherein
the slot is recessed from the interior surface defining the bore of
the electrically conductive housing or from the exterior surface
of the electrically conductive pin.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Michaels US 4,245,881 Jan. 20, 1981
Gan US 5,456,621 Oct. 10, 1995
REJECTIONS
Claims 16, 17, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Michaels. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664

3
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Michaels in view of Gan. Final Act. 5.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
16–17, 21–26 102(a)(1) Michaels
18 103 Michaels, Gan

OPINION
Whether Michaels anticipates claims 16, 17 and 21–26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102

Appellant argues inter alia that contrary to the Examiner’s finding
Michael’s “spiral spring 4” does not constitute a canted coil because the
coils that make up the spring are not canted. Appeal Br. 6. Furthermore,
Appellant argues that opening forces being applied on the spring 4 one
convolution at a time suggests that the spring 4 is a helical extension or
compression spring, and not a canted coil spring. Id. at 7. Appellant
produces the following Figure comparing the two types of coils, helical vs.
canted coil spring.

Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664

4
The above Figure indicates a helical coil (pictured above left) and a
canted coil (pictured above right). See Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant explains that standard helical springs can only expand or
compress along a single “X” axis. Id. Appellant explains that this conforms
to the opening forces being applied on the spring 4 of Michaels one
convolution at a time during insertion of the plug 5 into operative position in
the housing 2. Id. Appellant further explains that canted coil springs can
expand/contract along the “X” axis and can compress along the “Y” axis.
Id. Compressing along the “Y” axis is known as canting, which is why the
spring is understood in the industry as a canted coil spring. Id. If a canted
coil spring were to go through the same motion as the spring 4 when the
plug 5 is being inserted into operative position in the housing 2, opening
forces would be applied on the canted coil spring multiple convolutions at a
time, not one convolution at a time, due to the ability to compress along the
“Y” axis in addition to the “X” axis. Id. Appellant further explains that the
ability to compress along the “Y” axis in addition to the “X” axis is why the
claimed canted coil spring can be located in a “slot” whereas the
compression spring of Michaels is located in the enlarged cylindrical
section. Id. 7–8.
Appellant further argues that unlike canted coil springs, coils of the
standard helical spring have a zig-zag profile due to the coils having larger
slopes relative to the “X” axis than canted coil springs. Id. at 8. Spring 4
shown in Figures 1–3 of Michaels shows a similar zig-zag profile, coils
having larger slopes that a canted coil spring would have. Id.
Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664

5
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s disclosure discussing canted
coil springs and quotes the pertinent section stating:
[a] canted coil spring is understood as a spring that has a
plurality of interconnected coils that all cant generally in the
same direction. The canted coil spring differs from traditional
compression or extension helical springs, which cannot cant in
the radial direction between the two free ends of the spring
length.
Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 8). The Examiner finds that Michaels teaches a spring
4, with coils 18 which are canted, or leaned, along the same direction, and
concludes that the spring is a canted spring. Id.
Appellant in response points to Michaels’ Figure 2, reproduced below,
showing the coils angled or pointed left and right of a vertical plane. Reply
Br. 4.

Figure 2 shows the spring coil having coils pointed left and right.
We agree with Appellant that Michaels does not disclose a spring 4
with coils 18 that are all canted, or leaned, along the same direction. See
Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues, and we agree, that instead, 50% of the coil
sections lean left of the vertical plane and 50% of the coils lean right of the
vertical plane. Id. Claim 16 recites “a canted coil spring length comprising
Appeal 2020-005740
Application 15/612,664

6
a plurality of interconnected coils all canted along a same direction”
requiring that the coils are all canted. Claim 16 (emphasis added).
Michaels’ Figure 2 shows only 50% of the coils being canted.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 21–26.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
For the same reasons we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18 because the additional Gan reference does not cure the above cited
deficiency.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–18 and 21–26 is
REVERSED.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 17, 21–
26
102 Michaels 16, 17, 21–
26
18 103 Michaels, Gan 18
Overall
Outcome
16–18, 21–
26

REVERSED