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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/9/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheets (2020/0028297).
With regard to claim 1, Sheets teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “A connector 10 comprising: a shield sleeve 12; a jacket 20 at least partially surrounding and fixed to the shield sleeve 12; a lock collar 22 rotatable on and at least partially surrounding the shield sleeve 12, the lock collar 22 and the shield sleeve 12 having a connection end (right end in figure 1) for coupling to an electrical line 14 and a mating end (left end in figure 1) for making a plug-in connection; wherein the jacket 20 and the lock collar 22 and/or a seal ring 18 are at least partially overlapping; and a seal 16 in the overlap region, wherein the seal 16 is elastic and biased by the lock collar 22 and/or the seal ring 18 toward the connection end”.
With regard to claim 4, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the seal 16 is an annular seal and is positioned between the lock collar and/or the seal ring 18 and the jacket 20”.
With regard to claim 5, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the jacket 20 and/or the seal is an overmold”.
With regard to claim 6, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in the paragraph 43: “wherein the lock collar 22 is a locking nut”.
With regard to claim 7, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the lock collar is held in position by a spring 18 and thereby the compression of the seal 16 is permanently realized”.
With regard to claim 8, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the lock collar and/or the seal ring 18 has a jacket inner surface against which the seal 16 rests in regions and through which the seal 16 is biased”.
With regard to claim 11, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the connector 10 is provided with an electrical shield 12”.
With regard to claim 13, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in paragraph 29: “wherein the seal 16 is made of creep-resistant material (the materials in paragraph 29 provide at least moderate creep-resistance)”.
With regard to claim 14, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the lock collar 22 is provided with a knurl for actuation”.
With regard to claim 15, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the shield sleeve 12 has at least one flat that ensures local strength”.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (2020/0028297).
With regard to claim 2, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets does not teach: “wherein the seal 16 is part of the jacket”. However, Sheets teaches in the abstract and as shown in figures 1-4, that the jacket (enclosure 20) is in mechanical contact with the seal (sealing ring 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the seal and the jacket as one piece in order to create a tighter bond between the seal and the jacket. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
With regard to claim 3, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets does not teach: “wherein the seal is part of the lock collar and/or the seal ring”. However, Sheets teaches in the abstract and as shown in figures 1-4, that the sealing ring 18 is in mechanical contact with the seal (sealing ring 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the seal and the sealing ring as one piece in order to create a tighter bond between the seal and the sealing ring. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (2020/0028297) in view of Shaw (2013/0149884).
With regard to claim 9, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets does not teach: “wherein the seal has webs and grooves to ensure defined compression”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Shaw teaches, as shown in figures 1-24 and taught in paragraphs 104-108: “wherein the seal 67 has webs (paragraph 105 teaches the seal 67 forced into the wire web of the sheath, which would give the seal webs) and grooves (at least the grooves around 132 and groove 143) to ensure defined compression”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Shaw with the invention of sheets in order to enhance the seal (Shaw, paragraph 108).
With regard to claim 10, Sheets teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Sheets does not teach: “wherein the jacket and/or the lock collar and/or the ring seal has webs and grooves in the region of the seal in order to increase the effect of the seal”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Shaw teaches, as shown in figures 1-24 and taught in paragraphs 104-108: “wherein the jacket and/or the lock collar and/or the ring seal 67 has webs (paragraph 105 teaches the seal 67 forced into the wire web of the sheath, which would give the seal webs) and grooves (at least the grooves around 132 and groove 143) in the region of the seal in order to increase the effect of the seal”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Shaw with the invention of sheets in order to enhance the seal (Shaw, paragraph 108).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited reference does not teach “a connector having a seal that is biased by a lock collar or seal ring toward a connection end”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the positioning of the seal and the seal ring, as well as the materials of the seal is selected to have elastic properties (Sheets, paragraph 35) and the seal ring is selected to apply pressure to hold the seal in place. Since the seal is positioned on the connection end side, the seal will be biased toward the connection end.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831