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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Montet et al. [US 20140302704 A1].
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites "the clip", should read "the coding clip". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: line . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montet et al. [US 20140302704 A1] in view of Braunlich et al. [US 20140011386 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Montet et al. discloses A coding clip (3, Fig 1), comprising: a first portion (16) that locks a plug (2) with a first connector (not shown), the coding clip (3) is form-fitted on the plug (2) that extends in a mating direction; and a second portion (17) having a coding shape (32) matching a matching coding shape (33) of a plunger (13) mateable with the first connector along the mating direction, an inner circumference of a cross-section of the coding clip (3) along the mating direction has a jut (47, see Fig 2; [0071]) realizing the form-fitting of the coding clip (3) with the plug (2). Monte et al. does not explicitly disclose the first portion (16) has a slit separating the first portion into sub-portions, the coding shape of the second portion matching a coding shape of a mateable second connector.
However, Braunlich discloses the first portion (12) has a slit (see annotated Fig 6) separating the first portion (12) into sub-portions, and a second portion (11) having a coding shape (16) matching a matching coding shape of a second connector mateable with the first connector along the mating direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Montet as suggested by Braunlich to provide the first portion has a slit separating the first portion into sub-portions, the coding shape of the second portion matching a coding shape of a mateable second connector. Doing so would allow the plug to be secured against accidental unlocking or incorrect plugging as recognized by Braunlich.
Regarding Claim 2, Montet and Braunlich discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Braunlich further discloses a part of an inner circumference of a cross-section of the coding clip (12) in a mating plane perpendicular to the mating direction forms at least a side of a polygonal shape (rear cover 14 of coding part 12 is a square that fits into the square inner circumference of the first portion 12 of the coding clip 12, see Fig 4; the inner circumference of a cross section of the second portion 11 of the coding clip (12) forms an octagonal shape, see Fig 6, [0029]).
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 Montet as suggested by Braunlich to provide a part of an inner circumference of a cross-section of the coding clip in a mating plane perpendicular to the mating direction forms at least a side of a polygonal shape. Doing so would allow the plug to be secured to the coding clip against accidental unlocking or incorrect plugging as recognized by Braunlich.
Regarding Claim 3, Montet and Braunlich discloses all the limitations of claim 2, Braunlich does not explicitly disclose the part of the inner circumference forms three sides of a hexagonal shape.
However, Braunlich further discloses the mutual engagement of the coding clip is achieved via suitable shaping [0009].
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 Braunlich to provide the part of the inner circumference forms three sides of a hexagonal shape. Doing so would have been a routine design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the engagement and would’ve yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Montet further discloses the coding clip (3, Fig 1) is monolithically formed.
Regarding Claim 6, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Montet further discloses the coding clip (3) is formed of a plastic material [0095].
Regarding Claim 7, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Montet further discloses the coding clip (3) has a secondary visual fool proofing mechanism (slot 22) [Fig 1, 0051].
Regarding Claim 8, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Montet further discloses the first portion (16) has a form-fit device (9a, 9b) locking the plug (2) with the first connector when the plug (2) is arranged in the first connector (see Fig 2; [0083]).
Regarding Claim 9, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 8, Montet further discloses the form-fit device (9a, 9b, Fig 1) has a protrusion (ring 9 protrudes out) extending from the coding clip (3) in a direction orthogonal to the mating direction.
Regarding Claim 10, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 9, Montet further discloses the protrusion (ring 9 protrudes out) realizes the locking of the plug (2) with the first connector by form-fit [Fig 2].
Regarding Claim 11, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 10, Montet further discloses the first portion (16) of the coding clip (3) has an elastic portion (split ring 9) and the protrusion (ring 9 protrudes out) is formed on the elastic portion (split ring 9, see Fig 2; [0019-0020], [0083]).
Regarding Claim 12, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Montet further discloses the elastic portion (ring 9) is manually displaced along a direction substantially orthogonal to the mating direction and the form-fit locking can be reversibly disengaged [0083], [0093].
Regarding Claim 19, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Braunlich further discloses the first portion (12) has a plurality of slits (see annotated Fig 6).
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 Montet as suggested by Braunlich to provide the first portion with a plurality of slits. Doing so would allow the first portion to be elastic and provide an alternative locking feature that snaps onto place with the first connector securing the two components to one another as recognized by Braunlich.
Regarding Claim 22, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Montet further discloses the second portion (17) has a slit (22, see Fig 1) opening in an annular cross-section of the coding clip (3).
Regarding Claim 23, Montet and Braunlich disclose all the limitations of claim 22, Montet further discloses a location and dimensions of the coding shape (32) vary according to an encoding, the encoding is defined by an angle o13f the coding shape (32) with respect to the slit opening (22; see [0051]).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montet et al. [US 20140302704 A1] in view of Braunlich et al. [US 20140011386 A1] and in further view of Carlson [US 1222585 A].
Regarding Claim 13, Montet discloses a plug assembly, comprising: a plug (2) extending in a mating direction, an outer cross-section (14), Fig 1, 2) of the plug (2) along the mating direction has a dent (groove 14), and a coding clip (3) including a first portion (16) that locks the plug (2) with a first connector and a second portion (17) having a coding shape (32) matching a matching coding shape (33) of a plunger mateable with the first connector along the mating direction, the coding clip (3) is form-fitted on the plug (2) through a jut (47, Fig 2) of the coding clip (3) lodged in the dent (14). Monte et al. does not explicitly disclose the coding shape of the second portion matching a coding shape of a mateable second connector; and an end of the plug in the mating direction has a notch receiving a ball of a ball locking device.
However, Braunlich discloses a second portion (11) having a coding shape (16) matching a matching coding shape of a second connector mateable with the first connector along the mating direction.
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 Montet as suggested by Braunlich to provide the coding shape of the second portion matching a coding shape of a mateable second connector. Doing so would allow the plug to be secured against accidental unlocking or incorrect plugging as recognized by Monte and Braunlich. Monte and Braunlich do not explicitly disclose an end of the plug in the mating direction has a notch receiving a ball of a ball locking device.
However, Carlson discloses an end of a plug (5, Fig 1) in the mating direction has a notch (15,16) receiving a ball (27, 28; Fig 2) of a ball locking device.
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 Montet in view of Braunlich as suggested by Carlson to provide an end of the plug in the mating direction has a notch receiving a ball of a ball locking device. Doing so would secure the plug to the mating connecter and establishing a reliable connection reducing the chances of accidental disconnection.
Regarding Claim 14, Montet, Braunlich and Carlson disclose all the limitations of claim 13, Montet further discloses an outer circumference of a cross-section (at axial key 10, Fig 2) of the plug (2) in a mating plane perpendicular to the mating direction has a polygonal shape that matches a shape of an inner circumference of a cross-section (at internal axial groove 11, see Fig 2) of the coding clip (3).
Regarding Claim 16, Montet, Braunlich and Carlson disclose all the limitations of claim 13, Montet further discloses the plug (2) has an enlarged part (4) at a proximal end with respect to the mating direction.
Regarding Claim 17, Montet, Braunlich and Carlson disclose all the limitations of claim 16, Montet further discloses an extension of the enlarged part (4, Fig 2) in a direction orthogonal to the mating direction is greater than an extension of the enlarged part (4) in the direction orthogonal to the mating direction of any other part of the plug assembly.
Regarding Claim 18, Montet, Braunlich and Carlson disclose all the limitations of claim 17, Montet further discloses a connector (not shown) with a housing (42,43) receiving the plug assembly in a traversing hole (Fig 2) extending in the mating direction, an extension of the traversing hole in the direction orthogonal to the mating direction is smaller than the extension of the enlarged part (4) of the plug (2) in the direction orthogonal to the mating direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art of record do not explicitly disclose the second surface is diagonal or chamfered to an axis of the clip and faces partially in a direction opposed to the mating direction, along with all other limitations of claims 21 and 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834