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 1, filed 07/21/2025, with respect to restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement mailed on 05/19/2025 has been withdrawn.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024, 02/03/2025, 02/14/2025, 08/19/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “10” in Fig. 9 seem to be pointing to an area different from “10” in Fig. 11, “632” labeled twice (on top of structure) in Fig. 36, but before placed/pointed below of structure in the previous drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) or explanation are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "720b" in Fig. 15 and “720a" in Fig. 18 have both been used to designate the same structure in the same area. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “556a”, “556b”, “556”, “558”, “410”, “754” in Fig. 19-20, 22A, 40. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Period (.) in Claim 2 is missing
“the first enclosure” and “the second enclosure” in Claim 16-17 should be “the first enclosure portion” and “the second enclosure portion”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be currently allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ward (US6059602).
Regarding Claim 1. Ward teaches, in Fig. 1-7, an enclosure for containing an electrical connector connecting a plurality of conductors (abstract), the enclosure comprising: a first enclosure portion (2) and a second enclosure portion (50); and at least one strain relief assembly (40) for securing at least one of the plurality of conductors (column 3 lines 12-15); wherein the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion when joined are configured to receive the at least one strain relief assembly (column 3 lines 1-57)(Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman (US10840615).
Regarding Claim 11. Newman teaches, in Fig. 1-3 an enclosure for containing an electrical connector connecting a plurality of conductors (12,14,12A, 14A), the enclosure comprising: a first enclosure portion (122) and a second enclosure portion (124); and a cable positioning assembly (200), wherein the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion when joined form at least one cavity for receiving the cable positioning assembly (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12. Newman teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 11, wherein the cable positioning assembly comprises at least one guide arm (222,232) configured to guide and secure at least one of the plurality of conductors (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13. Newman teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 12, wherein the at least one guide arm comprises a plurality of parallel guide arms (222,232) configured to guide and secure at least one of the plurality of conductors (Fig. 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US10840615) in view of Kao (WO2016106065).
Regarding Claim 1. Newman teaches, in the Figures, an enclosure for containing an electrical connector connecting a plurality of conductors (12A, 12B,14A,14B), the enclosure comprising: a first enclosure portion (122) and a second enclosure portion (124); and at least one assembly (200) for securing at least one of the plurality of conductors; wherein the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion when joined are configured to receive the at least one assembly (Fig. 2), but does not teach the assembly is a stress relief assembly.
Kao, in Fig. 36, discloses the assembly is a stress relief assembly (730).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure as disclosed by Newman with the strain relief assembly as disclosed by Kao in order to prevent accidental separation/damage of the cables or the wires as it is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 14. Newman teaches, in the figures, an enclosure for containing an electrical connector connecting a plurality of conductors (12A,12B,14A, 14B), the enclosure comprising: a first enclosure portion (122) and a second enclosure portion (124), the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion when joined forming a connector cavity (22) for receiving the electrical connector and the plurality of conductors (column 21-22, lines 21-53); at least one assembly (200) positionable with respect to the connector cavity (Fig. 2) ; and a seal member (160, 170) positionable between the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion when the first enclosure portion and the second enclosure portion are joined (Fig. 8, Fig. 5) but does not teach the assembly is a stress relief assembly.
Kao, in Fig. 36, discloses the assembly is a stress relief assembly (730).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure as disclosed by Newman with the strain relief assembly as disclosed by Kao in order to prevent accidental separation/damage of the cables or the wires as it is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one strain relief assembly comprises a three-piece assembly (Kao, 738, 736, 734) (it has been also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Regarding Claim 3. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 2, wherein the three-piece assembly comprises a base (736), an upper arm (734) and a locking arm (738) (Kao).
Regarding Claim 4. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 3, wherein the first enclosure portion includes at least one first strain relief cavity (Newman 164, 130A) (Kao, 852) and the second enclosure portion includes at least one second strain relief cavity (Newman 174, 130A) (Kao, 812,820), and wherein the base (Newman, 200) (Kao, Fig. 36- 736) is configured to fit within at least one of the at least one first strain relief cavity and the at least one second strain relief cavity (Newman, Fig. 5)(Kao, Fig. 40).
Regarding Claim 5. Newman and Kao teach the enclosure as recited in claim 3, wherein the base (Newman, 200) comprises at least one first conductor gripping portion (Newman) (222- left) (232 left) and at least one second conductor gripping portion (Newman) (222- right) (232- right) (Newman, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 5, wherein the plurality of conductors comprise at least one first conductor (Newman,14) having a first diameter (Newman, see Fig. 5) and at least one second conductor (Newman, 12) having a second diameter (see Fig. 5), and wherein the at least one first conductor gripping portion (222/232 left) is configured to receive and grip at least a portion of the at least one first conductor (see Fig. 5) (Newman).
Regarding Claim 7 Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 6, wherein the at least one second conductor gripping portion (232/222 right) is configured to receive and grip at least a portion of the at least one second conductor (see Fig. 5) (Newman).
Regarding Claim 8. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 7, wherein the first diameter and the second diameter are different (Newman, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 5, wherein the at least one first conductor gripping portion (232/222 left) and the at least one second conductor gripping portion (232/222 right) comprise grip enhancing members (Newman, 260, Fig. 5) (for the purpose/benefit for better holding/gripping as it is known in the art, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.) (see also Fig. 14, Newman).
Regarding Claim 15. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 14, wherein the seal member comprises a first seal member (160) and a second seal member (170) (Newman, Fig. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 16. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 15, wherein the first seal member (160) is positioned within a first cavity (130A) of the first enclosure for sealing at least a first portion of the connector cavity (Newman, Fig. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 17. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 16, wherein the second seal member (170) is positioned with a second cavity (130A) of the second enclosure for sealing at least a second portion of the connector cavity (Newman, Fig. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 18. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 14, wherein the seal member (160, 170) comprises at least one of a substantially flat surface (166, 176) and a concave surface (174, 164).
Regarding Claim 19. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 14, further comprising a cable guide (Newman, Fig. 22- 340/342) positionable with respect to an opening (Newman, see Fig. 22) to the connector cavity for receiving and securing at least one of the plurality of conductors (Newman, see Fig .24).
Regarding Claim 20. Newman and Kao teaches the enclosure as recited in claim 14, wherein at least one wall forming (352) at least a portion of the connector cavity (350) is configured to limit a bend radius of at least one of the plurality of conductors (column 25 lines 15-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848