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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 02/09/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Jost et al. [US 5637010 A].
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) 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] in further view of Carlson [US 1222585 A] and in further view of Jost et al. [US 5637010 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. 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, the coding clip is form-fitted on the plug through a jut of the coding clip lodged in the dent.
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, the coding clip is form-fitted on the plug through a jut of the coding clip lodged in the dent.
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. Montet, Braunlich and Carlson do not explicitly disclose the coding clip is form-fitted on the plug through a jut of the coding clip lodged in the dent.
However, Jost discloses a mechanism of form fitting a plug (1, Fig 1) with a dent (17) via a jut (20) of a complimentary part (1’) that’s lodged in the dent (17).
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 in further view of Carlson as suggested by Jost to provide the coding clip form-fitted on the plug through a jut of the coding clip lodged in the dent. Montet utilizes a ring (12) that’s inserted into the dent (14) of the plug (2) to form fit the coding clip 3 to the plug while Jost utilizes a engagement element (20) attached to the housing (3’) of the complimentary part (1’) that is lodged into a dent (17) of the plug (1) to create a form-fit engagement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing the coding clip of montet with a jut instead of the ring as suggested by Jost would perform the same function and yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, Montet, Braunlich, Carlson and Jost 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, Carlson and Jost 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, Carlson and Jost 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
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 19, and 22-23 allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, 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 claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 19 and 22-23 are allowable as they are dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights