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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 22 is 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 22 depends on cancelled claim 21.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wang (us 7012194) in view of Wahl (US 3325591) or Yokoyama et al. (US 5569882) or Amano (US 5021611) or Calligaris (US 4935582).
Wang discloses in reference to claim:
A heating cable assembly (note the intended use of the cable assembly does not distinguish from cable assemblies sharing the same structure), comprising: a cable joint housing, comprising:
a body 10 integrally formed of an electrically insulating material (plastic), the body including:
a floor 10;
a pair of outer walls (perimeter wall in Figure 1), extending upwardly from the floor;
a pair of inner walls 11b, extending upwardly from the floor and positioned intermediate the pair of outer walls, the inner walls forming an inner insulating channel 12 and each of the pair of inner walls forming an outer insulating channel 12 with one of the adjacent outer walls, wherein the inner walls 11b and the outer walls each terminate in an upper surface [see annotated figure 6—showing shaded area representing the upper surface ]; and
a pair of openings (top of channel 12) defined above each of the insulating channels (see figure 6), the openings being devoid of material to allow at least a portion of one or more conductors to be installed into the insulating channels from above, through the openings;
a hot cable 20, including at least two hot conductors (see Fig. 6);
a cold cable 20, including at least two cold conductors (see Fig. 6);
one of the hot conductors and one of the cold conductors being connected at a first joint (see Fig. 4) and another of the hot conductors and another of the cold conductors being connected at a second joint (see figures 4 and 6);
the first and second joints being positioned in one of the insulation channels beneath one of the openings; and
an insulating wrap (other half of shell 10), installed about the housing and extending over and about a portion of each of the hot and cold cables 20, thereby and providing an insulative barrier above the first and second joints and about the housing and portions of each of the hot and cold cables 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
733
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
731
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang therefore discloses in reference to claim:
14. (currently amended) A method of finishing a cable assembly, comprising:
a body integrally formed of an electrically insulating material, the body including:
a floor;
a pair of outer walls, extending upwardly from the floor;
a pair of inner walls, extending upwardly from the floor and positioned intermediate the pair of outer walls, the inner walls forming an inner insulating channel and each of the pair of inner walls forming with one of the adjacent outer walls an outer insulating channel; wherein the inner walls and the outer wall each terminate in an upper surface, and a pair of openings defined above each of the insulating channels, the openings being devoid of material to allow at least a portion of one or more conductors to be installed into the insulating channels from above, through the openings;
positioning through one of the openings a first joint (see at 21) of a heating cable in one of the insulation channels such that the first joint sits beneath the one of the openings; positioning through another of the openings a second joint of a heating cable in another of the insulation channels such that the second joint sits beneath the another of the and installing an insulating wrap about the housing to thereby provide an insulative barrier above the first and second joints.
The addition of a unitary wrap of “electrical tape” around a splice housing after completing the assembly is a practice that has long been performed as a final step and would have been an obvious included step for the skilled artisan or tradesman.
Wang discloses a method of making the connection of conductors within the housing. Wang does not explicitly disclose the first joint or [second] joint including two conductors soldered or crimped to one another in a process removed from the housing.
Looking to any of the art taught by Wahl (US 3325591)
PNG
media_image3.png
1083
954
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or Yokoyama et al. (US 5569882)
PNG
media_image4.png
805
925
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or Amano (US 5021611)
PNG
media_image5.png
887
894
media_image5.png
Greyscale
or
Calligaris (US 4935582)
PNG
media_image6.png
492
770
media_image6.png
Greyscale
it is understood that joining two conductors by crimping may be provided in a process removed from the housing. Wahl (US 3325591) or Yokoyama et al. (US 5569882) or Amano (US 5021611) or Calligaris (US 4935582) as shown above disclose means for connecting conductors including rigid housing bodies intended to protect the area of a conductor splice when completed wherein the connection of the conductors takes place by crimping or the like outside of the rigid housing body. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to establish a method substantially as claimed and specifically including providing a crimped joint outside the housing prior to final assembly as a means to provide a more secure spliced connection.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the new limitations wherein installing the insulating wrap includes installing the insulating wrap in direct contact with the upper surface of the inner and outer walls, and about the housing and extending the insulating wrap about a portion of each of the hot and cold cables extending beyond the body, thereby providing an insulative barrier above the first and second joints and about the housing and the portions of the each of the hot and cold cables extending beyond the body.
It is noted that Wang provides for making an electrical connection within the housing using an insulating wrap or cover (top half of shell 10) to press metal bars 16 into contact with the individual wires 20. However, the Wang device as modified by Wahl (US 3325591) or Yokoyama et al. (US 5569882) or Amano (US 5021611) or Calligaris (US 4935582), to include providing a crimped joint outside the housing prior to final assembly as a means to provide a more secure spliced connection would be seen by the skilled artisan as a way to eliminate the need for the insulating wrap or cover (top half of shell 10) since the manor of making the electrical connection no longer relies on the top half to of the shell 10. As such, one of skill in the art would recognize a means to reduce the cost of the modified Wang device to rely only on a single half of the shell 10. Motivation for such a change can easily be seen as increasing the number of splices able to be made in the field with the Wang device by allowing each half of shell 10 to be used separately. Noting further that Figure 8 of Wang discloses the well known practice of providing an insulative wrap 23 to insulate and protect a wire splice, including providing such wrap beyond the end of the splice to include wrapping at least a portion of the wires 20 outside the splice area.
Upon wrapping the lower half of shell 10 with the insulative wrap 23 one arrives at the claimed invention including wherein installing the insulating wrap includes installing the insulating wrap in direct contact with the upper surface of the inner and outer walls, and about the housing and extending the insulating wrap about a portion of each of the hot and cold cables extending beyond the body, thereby providing an insulative barrier above the first and second joints and about the housing and the portions of the each of the hot and cold cables extending beyond the body.
15. (original) The method of claim 14, wherein each of the first and second joints are devoid of insulation beneath the insulating wrap installed about the housing.
Further wherein each of the first and second joints are devoid of insulation beneath the insulating wrap installed about the housing. See figures
16. (currently amended) The method of claim 14, wherein a height of the first and second joints installed within the insulation channel is equal to or smaller than a height of adjacent walls of the insulation channel within which the first and second joints are positioned.
Note that the height of the joints is shown as at least equal to or smaller than a height of adjacent walls of the insulation channel within which the first and second joints are positioned. See fig. 6
17. (currently amended) The method of claim 14, wherein a width of the first and second joints installed within the insulation channel is equal to or smaller than a width between adjacent walls of the insulation channel within which the first and second joints are positioned.
See Fig. 6 showing the joints fitting between the walls, as such the width of the first and second joints installed within the channel is equal to or smaller than a width between adjacent walls of the insulation channel within which the first and second joints are positioned
18. (original) The method of claim 14, wherein the inner walls are spaced and distinct from the outer walls.
Further wherein the inner walls (crests at 11 in figure 6) are spaced and distinct from the outer walls. See Fig. 4
20. (original) The method of claim 14, wherein the upper surfaces of the inner and outer walls lie on substantially the same plane.
Further, wherein the upper surfaces of the inner and outer walls lie on substantially the same plane. See Figure 6
The addition of a unitary wrap of “electrical tape” around a splice housing after completing the assembly is a practice that has long been performed as a final step and would have been an obvious included step for the skilled artisan or tradesman.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/10/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference solely as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Tsc
Prosecution Insights