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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 9, 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 8,267,357 (“Kataoka”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,297,479 (“Kato”).
Regarding Claims 1 - 4, 18 and 20; Kataoka discloses an assembled connector system [Figs. 6B, 6C] comprising a connector system 1 for fixing one or more conductors 60, comprising: a clamping frame 3 configured to be fixed to a body such as a vehicle [Figs. 7, 8]; the clamping frame 3 comprises a U-shaped component 14, 16, 18 and a closing member 13, 15, 17 configured to close an open end of the U- shaped component [Fig. 1]; and a cuboid shape elastic insert 2’ configured as one integral part to be arranged within the clamping frame 3, the insert 2’ comprises a first aperture 8 for receiving a conductor 60 and the insert 2’ is at least partially split 7 from an inner surface of the first aperture 8 to an outer surface of the insert 2’ which allows the first aperture to be opened for receiving the conductor 60.
Kataoka does not disclose the closing member connected to the U-shaped component via a hinge on a first end of the closing member and via a lock at a second end of the closing member.
However, Kato teaches a connector system for clamping and electrically connecting to a body extending through the system, with a U-shaped clamping frame 2 and closing member 5, with 5 connected to 2 via a hinge 3 on a first end of the closing member and via a lock (see the latch structure at the left side in Figure 3D, and also indicated below encircled at reference numeral A) at a second end of the closing member. It would have been obvious to provide a hinge and lock on the closing member as taught by Kato, because this ensures the two parts are held together, aligned, and then secured together during installation of a conductor within the connector system.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 5 and 6; Kataoka discloses the clamping frame 3 has inner peripheral walls [Fig. 3] that are shaped to form fitting support [Col. 5, lines 41-43] to the insert in three spatial axes to an outer shape of the insert 2’ to allow a firm arrangement [Col. 5, lines 52+] of the insert within the clamping frame.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9; Kataoka discloses the closing member (13, 15, 17) is configured to apply pressure of at least 0.05 N/mm2 [Col. 7, lines 8-9] to the insert 2’ when the insert is arranged within the clamping frame 3.
Regarding Claims 13-15; Kataoka discloses the insert 2’ is rubber [Col. 3, lines 27-28] which has a shore A hardness of at least 10 shore A and maximum service temperature of at least 70°C.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17; Kataoka discloses the insert 2’ comprises a second aperture 8 next to the first aperture [Fig. 4] and having substantially the same shape, for receiving a second conductor 60 and the insert is at least partially split 7 at the second aperture which allows the second aperture to be opened for receiving the second conductor [Col. 7, lines 27-34].
Regarding Claim 19; Kataoka discloses a vehicle 70 comprising a connector system 1 fixed to the vehicle [Figs. 5, 7, 8] via a fixing plate 15e, 16e and the fixing plate is attached to the clamping frame 3 of the connector system via fixing means B4, B5.
Regarding claim 20, Kataoka discloses a method of assembling a connector system having a clamping frame (3) configured to be fixed to a body (vehicle, see Figs. 7 – 8) and an elastic insert to be arranged within the clamping frame (insert 2 and connector structures are within the frame, see Fig. 5), wherein the clamping frame comprises a U-shaped component (14, 16, 18) and a closing member (13, 15, 17) configured to close an open end of the U-shaped component, wherein an insert (2) comprises a first aperture (8) for receiving a conductor, and wherein the insert is at least partially split at the first aperture (see split 7) which allows the first aperture to be opened for receiving the conductor ([0021]), the method comprising the steps of:
a) opening at least partially the first aperture of the insert (see [0021]);
b) arranging a conductor in the first aperture (see [0021] and Fig. 5);
c) opening the closing member of the frame (see Fig. [0030]);
d) arranging the insert within the clamping frame (see Fig. 1 and [0030]); and
e) closing the closing member of the clamping frame (see [0034] – [0035]).
Kataoka does not disclose wherein the closing member is connected to the U-shaped component via a hinge on a first end of the closing member and via a lock at a second end of the closing member opposite to the first end.
However, Kato teaches a connector system and method for clamping and electrically connecting to a body extending through the system, with a U-shaped clamping frame 2 and closing member 5, with 5 connected to 2 via a hinge 3 on a first end of the closing member and via a lock (see the latch structure at the left side in Figure 3D, and see encircled portion A, above) at a second end of the closing member, where the frame is opened (see Fig. 1A), a conductor is arranged within an insert (see Fig. 3A), and the closing member is closed (see Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to provide a hinge and lock on the closing member as taught by Kato, because this ensures the two parts are held together, aligned, and then secured together during installation of a conductor within the connector system and during opening and closing of the two parts.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka and Kato, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,212,764 (“Marche”).
Regarding claims 10 – 12, Kataoka discloses the connector system clamping frame 30 and insert 2’ comprising apertures 8 as discussed above in 1 and 7.
Kataoka does not show or teach attachment clips removably attached to the clamping frame, nor does Kataoka show or teach the aperture having ribs protruding from an inner surface thereof.
However, Marche [Fig. 1] teaches an analogous connector system comprising attachment clips 16.2, 16.4 removably attached to a clamping frame 14.
It would have been obvious to modify the clamping frame of Kataoka to include removable attachment clips as shown by Marche et al. thereby increasing the capacity of the connector system without undue modification of the connector system.
Marche et al. [Fig. 4] further shows the conductor aperture 44 having integral ribs [at 46].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the insert of Kataoka et al. such that the apertures have ribs as shown by Marche et al. thereby accommodating a wider range of conductor diameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that modifying Kataoka in view of Kato destroys the intended purpose of Kataoka, to provide a sealed component. Examiner cannot concur. Each of Kataoka and Kato disclose housing components which engage and encapsulate a rubber interior member. The rubber member of Kato is shown as engaging the interior walls of the housing of Kato, similar to how the walls of Kataoka engage the rubber member. This engagement is what holds the rubber member in place and is what allows the rubber member to complete the desired sealing function of the connector when assembled with the cable and device wall.
Applicant also argues that Kato does not address a deficiency in the structure of Kataoka, such as a way to improve sealing, and thus the modification of Kataoka in view of Kato is impermissible hindsight. This argument is not persuasive. To the extent that this argument stands for the proposition that the references are non-analogous, this is plainly untrue because each reference discloses and teaches a manner of engaging a U-shaped housing structure to a rubber member which guides cylindrical structures, and each are for electrical connector structures. The housing and rubber member of each are also similarly shaped and perform similar functions. These references are both in the same field of endeavor and are each pertinent to the question of how to form and mount the housing upon the rubber member.
To the extent that Kato does not discuss sealing, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, what Kato does teach is precisely what Kato is introduced for: the assembly of the housing which includes a hinge and lock.
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 PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights