DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on October 28, 2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 through 11 and 16 through 18 continue to remain as withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26, 2025.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 through 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,381,831 to Suzuki (hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of U.S. Publication 2004/0221634 to Saito et al (hereinafter “Saito”).
Claim 1: Suzuki discloses a detection system (e.g. Fig. 33), comprising:
an imaging device (e.g. 60) capturing a three-dimensional (3D) image of a connector (e.g. C) including a housing (e.g. C11, C12, etc.), a terminal (e.g. t), and a cable (e.g. a); and
a control device (e.g. 63) connected in communication with the imaging device, the control device calculates a defect of a connection end of the cable crimped to the terminal relative to a bottom surface of the housing according to the 3D image (e.g. col. 20, lines 14-27 and col. 21, lines 23+).
Claim 2: Suzuki discloses the detection system of claim 1, wherein the control device includes an image processing device (e.g. 61) extracting a plurality of top areas on the connection end of the cable from the 3D image, the plurality of top areas are evenly spaced in an axial direction (e.g. along R) of the connection end of the cable (e.g. Fig. 33).
Claim 19: Suzuki discloses the detection system of claim 1, wherein the terminal (t) is one of a plurality of terminals of the connector and the cable (a) is one of a plurality of cables connected to the connector, the cables are respectively crimped to the terminals, the detection system detects the defect of the connection end of each of the plurality of cables at a same time.
Claim 20: Suzuki discloses the detection system of claim 1, wherein the control device is a personal computer (e.g. Fig. 33).
Suzuki does mention that the control device calculates a height of the connection end of the cable crimped to the terminal [as required in Claim 1].
Saito discloses a connector with a housing, cable and terminal (e.g. Figs. 13, 14). Saito teaches the use of a control device (e.g. 23, Fig. 1) that includes a height calculation device (e.g. 25) to calculate a height (e.g. CH) of a connection end of a cable crimped to a terminal (e.g. ¶ [0085]) to determine a crimping state (e.g. good or bad) of the connector (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device of Suzuki by implementing a height calculating device, as taught by Saito, to calculate a height of a connection end of the cable crimpled to the terminal to determine the overall crimping state of the connector.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Suzuki detection system can calculate a plurality of heights of the plurality of top areas [of each connector in Fig. 33] relative to the bottom surface of the housing [with the height calculation device].
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Suzuki system can take a largest of the heights housing [with the height calculation device] of the plurality of top areas as a height of the connection end of the cable [for each connector in Fig. 33].
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission, have been fully considered but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
The applicants first assert that the primary reference to Suzuki does not teach “an imaging device capturing a 3D image of a connector including a housing, a terminal, and a cable” (lines 2-3 of Claim 1). The examiner disagrees as Suzuki meets these limitations at least for the following reasons. Applicants contend that the CCD camera 61 of Suzuki is subjected to a binary-coding process, which describes a standard 2D image capture and processing with no mention of 3D imaging capabilities. While the examiner acknowledges this aspect in Suzuki with the CCD camera 61, the CCD camera is just one part of the claimed “imaging device”. The claimed “imaging device” was read as the appearance inspecting unit 60, which at least includes a ring illumination 62 and the CCD camera 61. Suzuki discloses that these elements (e.g. 61, 62) taken altogether as the appearance inspecting unit, is what captures a 3D image. This is understood in at least the following two passages where Suzuki explicitly states (at col. 20, lines 23-43):
The inspecting and assembling unit E incorporates an appearance inspecting unit 60 disposed in the forward portion thereof to perform an image process of the housing C placed on the pallet P so as to perform an appearance inspection (correctness of the connection) of a state where the electric wire a and the terminal t have been connected to each other.
The appearance inspection is performed by the appearance inspecting unit 60 which performs an image process to inspect the position of the leading end of the electric wire a, presence of the electric wire a in the electric wire a and a degree of crimping of the barrel portion b at the crimping position. As shown in FIG. 33, the appearance inspecting unit 60 incorporates a CCD camera 61 serving as an image input unit; and a ring illumination 62 for obtaining uniform illumination. Thus, the terminal t made of metal material is illuminated and non-metal portions except for the terminal t, that is, the sheath of the electric wire a and the connector C are not illuminated. [emphasis added]
Applicants secondly assert that it would not be obvious to modify or substitute the CCD camera of Suzuki to include 3D imaging capabilities because to do so would alter the core principle operation of Suzuki’s detection system. To clarify, Suzuki was not modified in this manner. Suzuki teaches a control device, which is a host computer 63 (e.g. col. 20, lines 47-50). The secondary reference to Saito teaches a control device, which is also a host computer (e.g. 23, ¶ [0087]), and includes a height calculation device (e.g. 25). The modification, as stated in the above rejection, is to add the height calculation device of Saito to the control device of Suzuki, to calculate a height of an end of a cable that is connected to a terminal (e.g. C/H). Such a modification would determine a good or bad crimping state and would not alter the core operation of Suzuki because both references are analogous to the extent that they both teach the very same control devices.
It is noted that that Claim 1 recites “the control device calculates a height of a connection end of the cable crimped to the terminal relative to a bottom surface of the housing according to the 3D image”. The emphasis here is on the term of “relative”, as this is broadly interpreted that the housing, or bottom surface thereof, merely has to be present in relation to the cable and terminal. The term can exclude the housing as being part of the height calculation. Therefore, the calculation of height by Saito only needs to involve the connection end of the cable crimped to the terminal. The modification of Suzuki in lieu of the teachings of Saito, would be inclusive of the housing to the extent that the calculation of height would be “relative” to a bottom surface of the housing that is disclosed by Suzuki. It appears that if applicants wish to include the housing, or bottom surface thereof, to be included as part of the calculation of height, then further limitations in Claim 1 would be need to be added to make such a clarification. The examiner welcomes applicants to discuss such an amendment as part of a telephone interview.
Dependent Claims 2 through 4, 19 and 20 stand or fall together with Claim 1.
In summary, the modification of Suzuki in view of Saito meets all of the limitations of Claim 1 for the preceding reasons as the rejections above are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 through 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Non-Final action, mailed on July 29, 2025.
Prosecution Insights