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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued:
First, Bullock does not disclose a support structure comprising a rail for supporting a plurality of electric connection terminals.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a ‘rail,’ but does not recite a structure (such as shape, dimensions, hole spacing, etc.) The ‘rails’ in the context of the invention, are used for supporting electrical components, and in that sense the disclosed ‘rail’ of the applied art Bullock does disclose a plate shaped element (94) that supports electrical components, as such the reference does satisfy the ‘rail’ in the context of the invention.
Further the applicant has stated:
The Examiner maps the claimed "support structure comprising a rail" to Bullock's elements 82, 62, and 64. Element 82 refers to a "drawer connector support panel," and more specifically is a phenolic material panel with circular apertures 84 through which feed-through connector assemblies pass. Elements 62 and 64 are the "drawer-like movable frame" and the "stationary frame," respectively, which are large structural chassis components of the electrical circuit protector. None of these elements is a rail for supporting a plurality of electric connection terminals. Bullock's drawer connector support panel 82, movable frame 62, and stationary frame 64 are structurally and functionally distinct: they serve as housing components and feed-through connector mounting surfaces for a mining disconnect mechanism, not as a rail for supporting electric connection terminals.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has interpreted the recitation of ‘rail’ in the claim in context of the invention. Examiner has also applied Bullock with slight modification. As to the argument related to the material, etc., those are irrelevant arguments, as the material is not recited in the claim.
Applicant has argued:
(iii) A rail, as recited in Claims 1 and 21, and described throughout the Specification, is a mounting track configured to support electric connection terminals. Bullock's drawer connector support panel 82, movable frame 62, and stationary frame 64 are structurally and functionally distinct: they serve as housing components and feed-through connector mounting surfaces for a mining disconnect mechanism, not as a rail for supporting electric connection terminals.
In this case, the applicant appears to be agreeing with the examiner on interpretation of ‘rail’ and though the ‘rail’ in the reference is structurally different, it does satisfy the claim limitation.
Second, Bullock does not disclose an electric connector for connection to a plurality of external electric cables, the connector being connected to the base body and aligned with the opening structure. Bullock's individual wire terminals and insulating sleeves are structurally and functionally different from the claimed unitary electric connector. They are separate wire-termination points, not a multi-pin connector configured for connection to a plurality of external cables as a single unit.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the ‘external cables’ are not positively recited. The reference does disclose electrical connectors. As to ‘multi-pin’ that is not recited in the claim.
Third, Bullock does not disclose the claimed spatial arrangement in which the support structure is connected to the base body opposite to the connector.
There is no structural relationship in which element 94 is positioned between a connector on one side and a rail-bearing support structure on the other side.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to ‘spatial arrangement’ and ‘structural relationship,’ Applicant did not point out which ‘spatial arrangement’ or ‘structural relationship’ the reference did not satisfy.
Fourth, Bullock is drawn from a fundamentally different technical field and addresses a fundamentally different problem.
The claimed invention solves the specific problem of reducing cable routing, connection points, and installation complexity in robot control cabinets by providing a preassembled modular unit with a base body, connector, and terminal-rail support structure. Bullock's racking contactor solves a completely different problem: integrating a contactor and a disconnect/grounding switch to reduce parts count in a mining circuit protector (col. 4, lines 53-64). These are entirely different apparatuses serving different functions in different industries.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to ‘fundamental difference’ and ‘specific problem’, the Applicant has failed to point out which part of the claim limitation the rejection did not meet. As to the applicant’s comment about Bullock reference solving completely different problem, serving different function, or grounding connection, etc., all do not appear to be germane to the patentability of the claims.
Fifth, relating specifically to independent Claim 21, Bullock does not disclose the claimed support structure requiring one or more legs distancing the rail from the opening structure, and also does not disclose that the one or more legs are connected to the base body. Both of these claimed features further distinguish Bullock.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The various elements including support structure, one or more legs, base body, distance between the rail from opening structure, etc. have been pointed out in the body of the rejection including spatial relationships.
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, the Applicant has argued:
First, Bullock does not disclose the electric connection assembly of independent Claims 1 and 21, and the secondary references do not cure that deficiency.
As set forth in detail in the response to the § 102 rejection above, Bullock does not disclose: (1) a support structure comprising a rail for supporting a plurality of electric connection terminals, (2) an electric connector connected to the base body and aligned with the opening structure, or (3) the spatial arrangement in which the support structure is connected to the base body opposite to the connector. These are core structural elements of independent Claims 1 and 21 that define the claimed electric connection assembly.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The various elements have been pointed out in the body of the rejection including spatial relationships.
Applicant has further stated:
Even if the use of a standardized top hat rail were well known, Bullock does not disclose a rail at all, let alone one that is part of a support structure connected to a base body opposite to a connector. Accordingly, making the non-existent rail a standardized top hat rail does not cure Bullock's deficiency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the use of recitation ‘standardized rail’ see 112 rejection. As to the support structure connected to the base body opposite to a connector, is shown in fig. 6.
Second, the Examiner's motivation to combine Bullock and Adlon is conclusory.
For Claims 13-15, the Examiner states it would have been obvious to "provide robot system and a control cabinet in the electrical connector assembly of Bullock as suggested by Adlon et al. so as to have a complete robotic system with a control cabinet and connector assembly." This rationale is conclusory and does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art working on mining electrical circuit protectors would have looked to Adlon's 1986 robot system for guidance. Bullock is a mining disconnect mechanism, and Adlon is a robot controller. The Examiner has not articulated how combining a mining disconnect/grounding switch mechanism with a robot control cabinet would produce the claimed electric connection assembly with its specific base body, connector, and rail-bearing support structure arrangement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 13-15, recites ‘a control cabinet’ for an industrial robot. So, the ‘control cabinet’ is being positively recited, and recitation of ‘industrial robot’ is only intended use. The Examiner has taken a teaching of control cabinet, from Aldon reference. As to mention of 1986 (Aldon patent is issued in 1986) merely suggests that use of control cabinet is well known. As to the remark about motivation being conclusory, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a control cabinet for a connection assembly of Bullock, so that the various electrical components are protected, even for a robotic system.
Applicant has further argued:
Applicant respectfully submits that the question is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. See Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
A prima facie case of obviousness requires the examiner to show that each and every limitation of the claim is taught or suggested by the cited art.
In response, the Examiner would like to state that the Applicant has not specifically point out what is the deficiency in the rejection presented under 103. Examiner has pointed out what primary reference discloses, what primary reference does not disclose (missing element), what the teaching reference discloses (the missing element) and finally taking into consideration, if one of ordinary skill in the art will be motivated to use teaching of teaching reference, apply to the primary reference and achieve a benefit (motivation) from combining the two references.
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 4 and 16-19 are 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 4, recites “standardized top hat rail,’ which implies that the ‘rail’ conforms to some undefined standard, however, the claim fails to define what that standard is, hence the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claims 16-19, all depends from cancelled claim 2. Therefore the claims are vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bullock (US 8,760,853).
Regarding Claim 1, Bullock, figures 4, 5, discloses an electric connection assembly for a control cabinet, the electric connection assembly comprising:
a base body (90, fig, 5) having an opening structure (92, where 94 is fitted, fig. 6);
an electric connector (106, 116, 110, 120, fig. 5) for connection to a plurality of external electric cables (col. 4, line 54 to col. 6, lines 1-3), the connector being connected to the base body and aligned with the opening structure; and
a support structure comprising a rail (74, 94, fig. 4) for supporting a plurality of electric connection terminals (134, 144, fig. 5), the support structure being connected to the base body opposite to the connector.
Regarding Claim 3, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises two legs (62, 64), wherein the rail is provided between the legs (74, 94), and wherein the legs are connected to the base body on opposite sides of the opening structure.
Regarding Claim 5, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the support structure is made from a single sheet of material. The recitation ‘made from a single sheet of material is a product by process limitation, and the disclosed device is capable of being made from single sheet of material).
Regarding Claim 6, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base body (90) is a plate (fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 7, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connector is a heavy-duty connector.
Regarding Claim 8, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, further comprising the plurality of connection terminals, each connection terminal being connected to the rail and being configured to be connected to an internal electric cable (154, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 8, further comprising one or more intermediate electric cables (152, 154 in proximity of 140, 150, fig. 3), each connected to the connector and to a unique connection terminal.
Regarding Claim 10, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 8, further comprising a terminal block (240-244, fig. 8), and wherein the connection terminals are provided in the terminal block.
Regarding Claim 11, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 8, wherein each connection terminal is a push-in terminal.
Regarding Claim 16/1 (interpreted to depend from claim 1), Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly, wherein the support structure comprises two legs (62, 64), wherein the rail (74, 94) is provided between the legs, and wherein the legs are connected to the base body on opposite sides of the opening structure.
Regarding Claim 18/1 (interpreted to depend from claim 1), Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly, wherein the support structure is made from a single sheet of material. The recitation ‘made from a single sheet of material is a product by process limitation, and the disclosed device is capable of being made from single sheet of material).
Regarding Claim 19/1 (interpreted to depend from claim 1), Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly, wherein the base body is a plate.
Regarding Claim 20, Bullock discloses the electric connection assembly according to claim 1, wherein the support structure (74, 94, fig. 5) is connected to the base body (90) opposite to the connector (106, 116, 110, 120) such that the base body is disposed between the connector and the support structure (74).
Regarding Claim 21, Bullock, (figures 4, 5), discloses an electric connection assembly for a control cabinet, the electric connection assembly comprising:
a base body (90, fig, 5) having an opening structure (92, fig. 6);
an electric connector (106, 116, 110, 120, fig. 5) for connection to a plurality of external electric cables (col. 4, line 54 to col. 6, lines 1-3), the connector being connected to the base body and aligned with the opening structure; (and)
a support structure comprising a rail (74, 94, fig. 4) for supporting a plurality of electric connection terminals (134, 144, fig. 5), the support structure being connected to the base body opposite to the connector,
wherein the support structure includes one or more legs (62, 64) distancing the rail from the opening structure (92, rails are spaced apart from 94), and wherein the one or more legs are connected to the base body (90, fig. 6).
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock (US 8,760,853).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Bullock discloses the claimed invention, except for the rail is standardized top hat rail. The standardized (IEC or EN standard) rail is well known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to adapt standardized rail mounting for the disclosed connectors of Bullock. One will be motivated to adapt spacing of standard rail for mounting, as these rails are easily available and will make assembly easy.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock (US 8,760,853) in view of Kanda et al. (US 8,979,589).
Regarding Claim 12, Bullock discloses the claimed invention, except for shielding element for intermediate cable. Kanda et al. in figure 2, 11, discloses a cable 2 with a shielding member 23. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide shielded cable (braided cable) in Bullock as suggested by Kanda, to improve the signal transmission.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock (US 8,760,853) in view of Adlon et al. (US 4,584,757).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Bullock discloses an electrical connection assembly including base body, an electric connector, and a support structure (see rejection of Claim 1 above). However Bullock does not disclose a control cabinet and robot system. Adlon et al. in figure 1A, discloses a control cabinet (98), and a robot system (52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to provide robot system and a control cabinet in the electrical connector assembly of Bullock as suggested by Adlon et al. so as to have a complete robotic system with a control cabinet and connector assembly, where various electrical components are protected.
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 TULSIDAS C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2098. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-3:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571 272 4483. 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.
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights