DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 3/27/2026.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/2026 has been entered.
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) 1, 5 – 10, 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidori (US 4415222) in view of La Salvia (US 20130078873).
Regarding claim 1, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) a wedge type electrical power connector assembly comprising:
a frame (12) having conductor contact wall (24), a wedge support wall (26), and a rear wall (22) between the conductor contact wall (24) and the wedge support wall (26) and a mounting member (30), wherein the conductor contact wall (24), the wedge support wall (26) and the rear wall (22) form a wedge receiving channel (channel where conductor 18 is inserted);
a wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50) having a wedge (14) and a fastener (46, 50), the wedge (14) having a body (body of 14) and a fastener holder (38), the body (body of 14) being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel (see figure 5; channel where conductor 18 is inserted) of the frame (12), the fastener holder (38) being aligned with the mounting member (30) so that the fastener (46, 50) can pass through the fastener holder (38) into engagement with the mounting member (30),
an interface (16) separate from the wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50), the interface (16) having a first contact surface (64) that is aligned with the conductor contact wall (24), and a second contact surface (66) that is aligned with a contact surface (36) on the wedge (14), wherein the second contact surface (66) is configured to push a tap conductor (20) positioned between the second contact surface (66) and the wedge contact surface (36) in a direction so that a larger surface area of the tap conductor (20) contacts the second contact surface (66).
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the interface (350) is movably coupled to the rear wall (wall seen in figure 10 where the pivot posts 370 are installed) of the frame (310) by at least one connecting member (370, 371) such that the interface (350) is held within the wedge receiving channel (channel where cable 14 is accommodated).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 5, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the interface (16) includes a first side wall (wall where 68 extends from) and a second side wall (wall on opposite side of 68), wherein the first side wall (wall where 68 extends from) includes at least one lead-in (68).
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side wall includes a mounting element used to couple the interface to the connecting member.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the second side wall (sidewall of 350 that contacts wall of 310 having the holes 340, 340’) includes a mounting element (340, 340’) used to couple the interface (350) to the connecting member (370, 371).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the second side wall includes a mounting element used to couple the interface to the connecting member, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 6, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 5, wherein the at least one lead-in (68) is positioned in proximity to the second contact surface (66) of the interface (see figure 3; 16).
Regarding claim 7, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 5.
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the mounting element comprises a channel.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the mounting element (340, 340’) comprises a channel (channel where 370, 371 is inserted).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the mounting element comprises a channel, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 8, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the fastener (46, 50) comprises multi-lead threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8).
Regarding claim 9, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the multi-thread threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8) of the power connector assembly according to claim 8.
Although Polidori does not explicitly disclose that the multi-lead threading is triple-lead threading, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use triple-lead threading. Multi-thread threads, including single, double, and triple-lead configurations are well known in the art, each providing specific performance characteristics such as faster advancement per revolution and reduced insertion torque. A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize thread performance would have found it to be obvious to select a triple-lead thread configuration as a known variation or design choice within general teachings of multi-thread threading. Therefore, the limitation of triple-lead threading does not constitute a non-obvious improvement over the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) a wedge type electrical power connector assembly comprising:
a frame (12) having conductor contact wall (24), a wedge support wall (26), and a rear wall (22) between the conductor contact wall (24) and the wedge support wall (26) and a mounting member (30), wherein the conductor contact wall (24), the wedge support wall (26) and the rear wall (22) form a wedge receiving channel (channel where conductor 18 is inserted);
a wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50) having a wedge (14) and a fastener (46, 50), the wedge (14) having a body (body of 14) and a fastener holder (38), the body (body of 14) being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel (see figure 5; channel where conductor 18 is inserted) of the frame (12), the fastener holder (38) being aligned with the mounting member (30) so that the fastener (46, 50) can pass through the fastener holder (38) into engagement with the mounting member (30); and
an interface (16) separate from the wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50), the interface (16) including:
a first side wall (wall where 68 extends from) having at least one lead-in (68);
a first contact surface (64) aligned with the conductor contact wall (24); and a second contact surface (66) aligned with a contact surface (36) on the wedge (14), wherein the second contact surface (66) is configured to push a conductor (20) positioned between the second contact surface (66) and the wedge contact surface (36) in a direction so that a larger surface area of the conductor (20) contacts the second contact surface (66).
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel, and a second side wall having a mounting element used to couple the interface to the at least one connecting member.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the interface (350) is movably coupled to the rear wall (wall seen in figure 10 where the pivot posts 370 are installed) of the frame (310) by at least one connecting member (370, 371) such that the interface (350) is held within the wedge receiving channel (channel where cable 14 is accommodated), and a second side wall (sidewall of 350 that contacts wall of 310 having the holes 340, 340’) having a mounting element (340, 340’) used to couple the interface (350) to the at least one connecting member (370, 371).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel, and a second side wall having a mounting element used to couple the interface to the at least one connecting member, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 14, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 10, wherein the at least one lead-in (68) is positioned in proximity to the second contact surface (66) of the interface (see figure 3; 16).
Regarding claim 15, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 10.
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the mounting element comprises a channel.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the mounting element (340, 340’) comprises a channel (channel where 370, 371 is inserted).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the mounting element comprises a channel, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 16, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 10, wherein the fastener (46, 50) comprises multi-lead threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8).
Regarding claim 17, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the multi-thread threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8) of the power connector assembly according to claim 16.
Although Polidori does not explicitly disclose that the multi-lead threading is triple-lead threading, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use triple-lead threading. Multi-thread threads, including single, double, and triple-lead configurations are well known in the art, each providing specific performance characteristics such as faster advancement per revolution and reduced insertion torque. A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize thread performance would have found it to be obvious to select a triple-lead thread configuration as a known variation or design choice within general teachings of multi-thread threading. Therefore, the limitation of triple-lead threading does not constitute a non-obvious improvement over the prior art.
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 11 – 13, 18 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidori (US 4415222) in view of La Salvia (US 20130078873) and further in view of Juillet (US 20200235500).
Regarding claim 2, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 1.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting member comprises a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, the second end of the leg having an interface coupling member attached thereto.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the connecting member (see figure 1) comprises a flexible member (see figure 1) having a base (100), a leg (106) having one end attached to the base (100) and a second end (see second end of 100) positioned away from the base (100), the second end (see second end of 100) of the leg (106) having an interface coupling member (112) attached thereto.
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, the second end of the leg having an interface coupling member attached thereto, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 3, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 2.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible member comprises an elastomeric member.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the flexible member (see figure 1) comprises an elastomeric member (¶0021).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide the flexible member comprising an elastomeric member, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 4, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 2.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the base (100) has a substantially arcuate shape (see shape of 100 in figure 1).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 11, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 10.
But Polidori and La Salvia does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting member comprises a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, the second end of the leg having an interface coupling member attached thereto.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the connecting member (see figure 1) comprises a flexible member (see figure 1) having a base (100), a leg (106) having one end attached to the base (100) and a second end (see second end of 100) positioned away from the base (100), the second end (see second end of 100) of the leg (106) having an interface coupling member (112) attached thereto.
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, the second end of the leg having an interface coupling member attached thereto, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 12, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 11.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible member comprises an elastomeric member.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the flexible member (see figure 1) comprises an elastomeric member (¶0021).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide the flexible member comprising an elastomeric member, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 13, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 11.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the base (100) has a substantially arcuate shape (see shape of 100 in figure 1).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 18, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) a wedge type electrical power connector assembly comprising:
a frame (12) having conductor contact wall (24), a wedge support wall (26), and a rear wall (22) between the conductor contact wall (24) and the wedge support wall (26) and a mounting member (30), wherein the conductor contact wall (24), the wedge support wall (26) and the rear wall (22) form a wedge receiving channel (channel where conductor 18 is inserted);
a wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50) having a wedge (14) and a fastener (46, 50), the wedge (14) having a body (body of 14) and a fastener holder (38), the body (body of 14) being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel (see figure 5; channel where conductor 18 is inserted) of the frame (12), the fastener holder (38) being aligned with the mounting member (30) so that the fastener (46, 50) can pass through the fastener holder (38) into engagement with the mounting member (30); and
an interface (16) separate from the wedge assembly (see figure 4, assembly of 14, 60, and 50), and the interface (16) having a first contact surface (64) that is aligned with the conductor contact wall (24), and a second contact surface (66) that is aligned with a contact surface (36) on the wedge (14), wherein the second contact surface (66) is configured to push a tap conductor (20) positioned between the second contact surface (66) and the wedge contact surface (36) in a direction so that a larger surface area of the tap conductor (20) contacts the second contact surface (66).
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel; and wherein the at least one connecting member includes a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, wherein the second end of the leg has an interface coupling member attached thereto.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the interface (350) is movably coupled to the rear wall (wall seen in figure 10 where the pivot posts 370 are installed) of the frame (310) by at least one connecting member (370, 371) such that the interface (350) is held within the wedge receiving channel (channel where cable 14 is accommodated).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the interface is movably coupled to the rear wall of the frame by at least one connecting member such that the interface is held within the wedge receiving channel, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Furthermore, Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the at least one connecting member (see figure 1) includes a flexible member (see figure 1) having a base (100), a leg (106) having one end attached to the base (100) and a second end (see second end of 100) positioned away from the base (100), the second end (see second end of 100) of the leg (106) having an interface coupling member (112) attached thereto.
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide a flexible member having a base, a leg having one end attached to the base and a second end positioned away from the base, the second end of the leg having an interface coupling member attached thereto, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 19, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 18.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible member comprises an elastomeric member.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the flexible member (see figure 1) comprises an elastomeric member (¶0021).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide the flexible member comprising an elastomeric member, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 20, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 18.
But Polidori and La Salvia do not explicitly disclose wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape.
Juillet teaches (figure 1 – 12) a connector interface wherein the base (100) has a substantially arcuate shape (see shape of 100 in figure 1).
Therefore, 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 Polidori and La Salvia with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide wherein the base has a substantially arcuate shape, to reduce life cycle and maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 21, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 18, wherein the interface (16) includes a first side wall (wall where 68 extends from) and a second side wall (wall on opposite side of 68), wherein the first side wall (wall where 68 extends from) includes at least one lead-in (68).
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side wall includes a mounting element used to couple the interface to the connecting member.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the second side wall (sidewall of 350 that contacts wall of 310 having the holes 340, 340’) includes a mounting element (340, 340’) used to couple the interface (350) to the connecting member (370, 371).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the second side wall includes a mounting element used to couple the interface to the connecting member, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 22, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 21, wherein the at least one lead-in (68) is positioned in proximity to the second contact surface (66) of the interface (see figure 3; 16).
Regarding claim 23, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 21.
But Polidori does not explicitly disclose wherein the mounting element comprises a channel.
La Salvia teaches (figure 10) a connector wherein the mounting element (340, 340’) comprises a channel (channel where 370, 371 is inserted).
Therefore, 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 Polidori with the connector as disclosed by La Salvia to provide wherein the mounting element comprises a channel, to improve the connector’s versatility by allowing accommodation of cables of different sizes.
Regarding claim 24, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the power connector assembly according to claim 18, wherein the fastener (46, 50) comprises multi-lead threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8).
Regarding claim 25, Polidori teaches (figures 1 – 6) the multi-thread threading (column 3, lines 3 – 8) of the power connector assembly according to claim 8.
Although Polidori does not explicitly disclose that the multi-lead threading is triple-lead threading, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use triple-lead threading. Multi-thread threads, including single, double, and triple-lead configurations are well known in the art, each providing specific performance characteristics such as faster advancement per revolution and reduced insertion torque. A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize thread performance would have found it to be obvious to select a triple-lead thread configuration as a known variation or design choice within general teachings of multi-thread threading. Therefore, the limitation of triple-lead threading does not constitute a non-obvious improvement over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1 – 25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights