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 .
Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
they are not done in solid black lines; 37 CFRR 1.84(a), and
Figs. 1a and 2a should be bracketed; 37 CFRR 1.84(h)(1).
The specification is objected to because:
It appears that page 11, line 14, “Fig. 2” should be changed to -Figs. 2a and 2b- as there is no Fig. 2 in the application.
Further, “6” is not used in this embodiment.
Although the list of reference numerals (p. 14) is not necessary, if it is retained, “8” should be deleted as it no longer is used in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are indefinite because “excessively” (line 3) is a subjective term that is not defined in the claims nor in the specification.
In claim 7 “the connecting element” (line 6) and “the cable-side end” (line 14) lack antecedent basis.
Also, for grammatical clarity, on line 14 of claim 7, it appears that “housing, wherein” should be changed to -housing when-.
Claims 20 and 22 are indefinite because they do not clearly describe the disclosed arrangements. None of the drawings show the cable directly connected to the housing. Further, the only mention of structures being directly connected is at the end of page 3, which indicates that the bending protection and the housing are directly connected. It is unclear how the cable (9) is directly connected to the housing (3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 20 and 22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindkamp, et al (US Pat 9774132) in view of Kralik (US Pat 10770831).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Lindkamp discloses an electric plug connector 11 comprising a housing 3 for receiving a cable 2 and a bending protection 4. A connecting element 8 is arranged between the housing 3 and the bending protection 4. The connecting element 8 is configured to assume a first state and a second state (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), wherein at least the second state is irreversible and the bending protection is permanently fixed (col 1, lines 29-48) when the connecting element is in the second state. The connecting element 8 comprises at least two components (A & B, as annotated below). Further, the polymer of connecting element 8 may be activated by heat (col. 2, lines 19-20), and is configured to develop an adhesive effect. Lindkamp does not specify any particular material for the bending protection 4. However, Kralik teaches the use of polyethylene for a similar structure 118 (col. 8, lines 5-8) and discusses the desire for protection of such structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the bending protection of Lindkamp from polyethylene as taught by Kralik.
Regarding claim 12, the bending protection 4 of Lindkamp is a hollow cylindrical form with notches (i.e. cutouts) that allow bending.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, the cable 2, bending protection 4 and housing 3 of Lindkamp are connected in the same manner as the respective parts of the present invention.
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindkamp and Kralik, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Rouse. Although Lindkamp does not specify the triggering temperature, Rouse, as well as those skilled in the art, are familiar with the appropriate materials and temperatures needed for triggering a change of state. Therefore, the temperatures of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 would have been obvious for use on the device of Lindkamp. Further, it is noted that the temperatures and the triggering are seen to be process steps that are given little weight in these apparatus claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee, et al (both) and Iamartino, et al are further examples of polyethylene used in electrical connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Renee Luebke, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2009 and who can normally be reached between 11am and 5pm.
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.
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.
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833