DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 6, 2026 has been entered.
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Claims 5 through 11 and 16 through 18 remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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 through 4, 12 through 15 and 19 through 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
In each of Claims 1 and 21, the omitted elements are a height calculation device.
In each of Claims 1 and 21, it is implied that the control device is what calculates a height, based on the recitation of “the control device calculates a height taken from a connection end of the cable crimpled to the terminal to a bottom surface of the housing according to the 3D image” (lines 4-6 of Claim 1 and lines 5-7 of Claim 21). However, the specification (e.g. ¶¶ [0018], [0025]) clearly discloses that the structure necessary to calculate this height is a height calculation device 40 in Figure 1. Claim 1 and 21 each do not recite any such structure, which contradicts the specification. Claim 1 and 21 each imply that the control device alone is what calculates a height, which is misleading, confusing, and renders the claims as indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments with respect to Claims 1 through 4, 19 and 20, have been fully considered, but are moot because the following new grounds of rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 through 4 and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2008/0172898 to Yagi et al (hereinafter “Yagi”) in view of U.S. Publication 2007/0218749 to Viviroli (hereinafter “Viviroli”).
Claim 1: Yagi discloses a detection system (e.g. Figs. 1, 2), comprising:
an measurement device (e.g. 60) that measures a three-dimensional (3D) image of a connector (e.g. Fig. 3) including a housing (e.g. 46), a terminal (e.g. 42, 44), and a cable (e.g. 50); and
a control device (“control means”, not shown) connected in communication with the measurement device (e.g. ¶ [0050]), the control device calculates a height (e.g. H1, Fig. 8) taken from a connection end (e.g. 52) of the cable crimped to the terminal (e.g. 42) to a bottom surface (e.g. 41) of the housing according to the 3D image (e.g. Fig. 8, ¶¶ [0103], [0104]).
Claim 2: Yagi discloses the detection system of claim 1, wherein the control device includes an image processing device (e.g. “image processing”, ¶ [0091]) extracting a plurality of top areas (e.g. top of each cross-hatched region of 52, in Fig. 8) 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. longitudinal axis of 51, Fig. 3) of the connection end of the cable.
Claim 3: Yagi discloses that detection system of claim 2, wherein the control device includes a height calculation device (e.g. block “MEASURMENT OF HEIGHT OF CORE WIRE CRIMPING PORTION”, Fig. 1) calculating a plurality of heights (e.g. top of each cross-hatched region of 52, in Fig. 8) of the plurality of top areas relative to the bottom surface of the housing.
Claim 4: Yagi discloses the detection system of claim 3, wherein the height calculation device takes a largest of the heights of the plurality of top areas as a height (e.g. H1) of the connection end of the cable (e.g. Fig. 8).
Claim 19: Yagi discloses the detection system of claim 1, wherein the terminal is one of a plurality of terminals (e.g. left 42, right 42, Fig. 3) of the connector and the cable is one of a plurality of cables (e.g. strands of 52) connected to the connector, the cables are respectively crimped to the terminals, the detection system detects the height of the connection end of each of the plurality of cables at a same time (e.g. Fig. 8).
Yagi does not teach an “imaging device”, or that Yagi’s measurement device does not include an “imaging device” [as required in Claim 1].
Viviroli discloses an art-recognized equivalent detection device (e.g. Fig. 5) that comprises an imaging device (e.g. 14, 15) that captures a 3D image of a connector (e.g. Fig. 2) that includes a housing (e.g. 1), terminal (e.g. 3), and a cable (e.g. 6). The imaging device measures various dimensions, including heights, of the connector (e.g. ¶¶ [0025] to [0036]).
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 detection system of Yagi, by incorporating the imaging device of Viviroli, to achieve the same purpose of calculating a height taken from the connection end of the cable crimped to the terminal to the bottom surface of the housing according to the 3D image. Particularly, that the connector in Yagi (Fig. 4) is equivalent to the connector of Viviroli (Fig. 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi in view of Viviroli, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2014/0331495 to Nicholas et al (hereinafter “Nicholas”).
Yagi, as modified by Viviroli, discloses the claimed detection system as relied upon above in Claim 1. The modified Yagi system does not mention an industrial computer.
Nicholas discloses an art-recognized equivalent detection system (e.g. Fig. 1) where an industrial computer (e.g. 148) is used as a control device to display and control various operations of the system, one of which is to calculate dimensions of a connector (e.g. ¶¶ [0033] to [0037]).
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 Yagi by utilizing the industrial computer of Nicholas, to display and control various operations of the detection system including calculating of height (dimensions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 through 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-4570. 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 3729
Prosecution Insights