DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/3/2026.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains only 42 words, which is less than the recommended range of 50 to 150 words set forth in MPEP § 608.01(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 – 10, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugiah (US 20200076094) in view of Kossak (US 7655863).
Regarding claim 1, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) an interface (120) for use with a wedge type cable connector (110), the interface comprising: a body (see figure 8) comprising first (129) and second longitudinal side walls (wall on the opposite side of 129) and upper (124A) and lower concave longitudinal contact surfaces (126A).
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface is configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprises a convex longitudinal bump.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (surface of 52) is configured to receive a single conductor cable (surface of 52 is capable of receiving a single conductor cable; MPEP 2114) and comprises a convex longitudinal bump (52).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the lower concave longitudinal contact surface being configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprising a convex longitudinal bump, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable when the connector is assembled.
Regarding claim 2, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 1, wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (126A) comprises a first concave surface (left side of 126A) having a first radius (1R) and a second concave surface (right side of 126A) having a second radius (2R).
~ Please see annotation of figure 6 in the Murugiah reference, where the first radius 1R, the second radius 2R, the conductor contact wall 110c, the wedge support wall 110s, the rear wall 110r, the mounting member 110m, and the wedge receiving channel 110w can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 2, wherein the first radius (1R) and the second radius (2R) are the same (see annotation).
Regarding claim 4, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 2.
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the first radius and the second radius are different.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the first radius (radius of 36) and the second radius (radius of 48) are different (see figure 7; column 4, lines 4 – 37).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the first radius and the second radius being different, as changing the radii is a routine design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would use to improve the cable fit, contact pressure distribution, and cable retention.
Regarding claim 5, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 4.
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the first radius is greater than the second radius.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the first radius (radius of 36) is greater than the second radius (radius of 48).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the first radius being greater than the second radius, as changing the radii is a routine design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would use to improve the cable fit, contact pressure distribution, and cable retention.
Regarding claim 6, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 5.
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the convex longitudinal bump is provided on the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the convex longitudinal bump (52) is provided on the first concave surface (surface of 52).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the convex longitudinal bump being provided on the first concave surface, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable when the connector is assembled.
Regarding claim 7, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 6.
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the second concave surface serves to urge a cable toward the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the second concave surface (42) serves to urge a cable toward the first concave surface (i.e. 42 is capable of urging a cable toward 50).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the second concave surface serving to urge a cable toward the first concave surface, in order to improve the mechanical retention of the cable.
Regarding claim 8, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 7.
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose wherein convex longitudinal bump serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein convex longitudinal bump (52) serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable (i.e. disclosed bump is capable of limiting unraveling of strands forming the cable).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the convex longitudinal bump that serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable, as it would have been an obvious matter of design choice and predictable use of a known technique to improve the cable’s retention and integrity.
Regarding claim 9, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 2.
But Murugiah do not explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinal edge of the second concave surface extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge of the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein a longitudinal edge (edge of 42) of the second concave surface (42) extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge (edge of 50) of the first concave surface (50).
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 Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide a longitudinal edge of the second concave surface extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge of the first concave surface, in order to improve the mechanical retention of the cable within the mating cavities.
Regarding claim 10, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the interface according to claim 2, wherein a longitudinal edge (edge on the right side of 126A) of the second concave surface (right side of 126A) is substantially even (both edges of 126A are even) with an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge (edge on the left side of 126A) of the first concave surface (left side of 126A).
Regarding claim 21, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the interface according to claim 1, further comprising a mounting element (132).
Regarding claim 22, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the interface according to claim 21, wherein the mounting element (132) comprises at least one channel (Examiner interprets 132 as being a channel for 160 to slide into) for receiving at least one connecting member (160, 164) for movably coupling the interface (120) to a frame assembly (assembly of 110, see figure 6).
Claim(s) 11 – 20, 23 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murugiah (US 20200076094) in view of Juillet (US 20200235500) and further in view of Kossak (US 7655863).
Regarding claim 11, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) a wedge type electrical power connector assembly comprising: a frame (110) having conductor contact wall (110c), a wedge support wall (110s), and a rear wall (110r) between the conductor contact wall (110c) and the wedge support wall (110s) and a mounting member (110m), wherein the conductor contact wall (110c), the wedge support wall (110s) and the rear wall (110r) form a wedge receiving channel (110w); an interface (120) movably positioned within the wedge receiving channel (110w), the interface (120) comprising a body (see figure 8) comprising first (129) and second longitudinal side walls (wall on the opposite side of 129) and upper (124A) and lower concave longitudinal contact surfaces (126A).
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose a wedge assembly having a wedge and a fastener, the wedge having a body and a fastener holder, the body being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel of the frame, the fastener holder being aligned with the mounting member so that the fastener can pass through the fastener holder into engagement with the mounting member; and wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface is configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprises a convex longitudinal bump.
Juillet teaches (figures 8 – 12, annotation) a connector comprising a wedge assembly (see figure 10) having a wedge (302) and a fastener (304), the wedge (302) having a body (body of 302) and a fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into), the body (body of 302) being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel (300w) of the frame (300), the fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into) being aligned with the mounting member (300m) so that the fastener (304) can pass through the fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into) into engagement with the mounting member (300m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide a wedge assembly having a wedge and a fastener, the wedge having a body and a fastener holder, the body being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel of the frame, the fastener holder being aligned with the mounting member so that the fastener can pass through the fastener holder into engagement with the mounting member, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable by facilitating secure engagement between components during assembly and use.
Furthermore, Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (surface of 52) is configured to receive a single conductor cable (surface of 52 is capable of receiving a single conductor cable; MPEP 2114) and comprises a convex longitudinal bump (52).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the lower concave longitudinal contact surface being configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprising a convex longitudinal bump, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable when the connector is assembled.
~ Please see annotation of figure 6 in the Murugiah reference, where the conductor contact wall 110c, the wedge support wall 110s, the rear wall 110r, the mounting member 110m, and the wedge receiving channel 110w can be seen.
PNG
media_image2.png
683
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
~ Please see annotation of figure 8 in the Juillet reference, where the wedge receiving channel 300w and the mounting member 300m can be seen.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 11, wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (126A) comprises a first concave surface (left side of 126A) having a first radius (1R) and a second concave surface (right side of 126A) having a second radius (2R).
Regarding claim 13, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 12, wherein the first radius (1R) and the second radius (2R) are the same (see annotation).
Regarding claim 14, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 12.
But Murugiah and Juillet do not explicitly disclose wherein the first radius and the second radius are different.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the first radius (radius of 36) and the second radius (radius of 48) are different (see figure 7).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the first radius being greater than the second radius, as changing the radii is a routine design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would use to improve the cable fit, contact pressure distribution, and cable retention.
Regarding claim 15, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 14.
But Murugiah and Juillet and do not explicitly disclose wherein the first radius is greater than the second radius.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the first radius (radius of 36) is greater than the second radius (radius of 48).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the first radius being greater than the second radius, as changing the radii is a routine design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would use to improve the cable fit, contact pressure distribution, and cable retention.
Regarding claim 16, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 15.
But Murugiah and Juillet do not explicitly disclose wherein the convex longitudinal bump is provided on the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the convex longitudinal bump (52) is provided on the first concave surface (surface of 52).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the convex longitudinal bump being provided on the first concave surface, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable when the connector is assembled.
Regarding claim 17, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 16.
But Murugiah and Juillet do not explicitly disclose wherein the second concave surface serves to urge a cable toward the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the second concave surface (42) serves to urge a cable toward the first concave surface (i.e. 42 is capable of urging a cable toward 50).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the second concave surface serving to urge a cable toward the first concave surface, in order to improve the mechanical retention of the cable.
Regarding claim 18, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 17.
But Murugiah and Juillet do not explicitly disclose wherein convex longitudinal bump serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein convex longitudinal bump (52) serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable (i.e. disclosed bump is capable of limiting unraveling of strands forming the cable).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the convex longitudinal bump that serves to limit or prevent unraveling of strands forming the cable, as it would have been an obvious matter of design choice and predictable use of a known technique to improve the cable’s retention and integrity.
Regarding claim 19, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 12.
But Murugiah and Juillet do not explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinal edge of the second concave surface extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge of the first concave surface.
Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein a longitudinal edge (edge of 42) of the second concave surface (42) extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge (edge of 50) of the first concave surface (50).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide a longitudinal edge of the second concave surface extends below an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge of the first concave surface, in order to improve the mechanical retention of the cable within the mating cavities.
Regarding claim 20, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 12, wherein a longitudinal edge (edge on the right side of 126A) of the second concave surface (right side of 126A) is substantially even (both edges of 126A are even) with an imaginary lateral line extending from a longitudinal edge (edge on the left side of 126A) of the first concave surface (left side of 126A).
Regarding claim 23, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) a wedge type electrical power connector assembly comprising: a frame (110) having conductor contact wall (110c), a wedge support wall (110s), and a rear wall (110r) between the conductor contact wall (110c) and the wedge support wall (110s) and a mounting member (110m), wherein the conductor contact wall (110c), the wedge support wall (110s) and the rear wall (110r) form a wedge receiving channel (110w); an interface (120) movably coupled to the frame (110) by at least one connecting member (164, 162), the interface (120) comprising a body (see figure 8) comprising first (129) and second longitudinal side walls (wall on the opposite side of 129) and upper (124A) and lower concave longitudinal contact surfaces (126A).
But Murugiah does not explicitly disclose a wedge assembly having a wedge and a fastener, the wedge having a body and a fastener holder, the body being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel of the frame, the fastener holder being aligned with the mounting member so that the fastener can pass through the fastener holder into engagement with the mounting member; and wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface is configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprises a convex longitudinal bump.
Juillet teaches (figures 8 – 12, annotation) a connector comprising a wedge assembly (see figure 10) having a wedge (302) and a fastener (304), the wedge (302) having a body (body of 302) and a fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into), the body (body of 302) being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel (300w) of the frame (300), the fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into) being aligned with the mounting member (300m) so that the fastener (304) can pass through the fastener holder (bottom portion of 302 in figure 10, where the fastener 304 screws into) into engagement with the mounting member (300m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Murugiah with the connector as disclosed by Juillet to provide a wedge assembly having a wedge and a fastener, the wedge having a body and a fastener holder, the body being shaped to fit at least partially within the wedge receiving channel of the frame, the fastener holder being aligned with the mounting member so that the fastener can pass through the fastener holder into engagement with the mounting member, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable by facilitating secure engagement between components during assembly and use.
Furthermore, Kossak teaches (figures 5 – 7) a connector wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (surface of 52) is configured to receive a single conductor cable (surface of 52 is capable of receiving a single conductor cable; MPEP 2114) and comprises a convex longitudinal bump (52).
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 Murugiah and Juillet with the connector as disclosed by Kossak to provide the lower concave longitudinal contact surface being configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprising a convex longitudinal bump, to increase the mechanical stability of the cable when the connector is assembled.
Regarding claim 24, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17, annotation) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 23, wherein the connecting member (160) comprises a flexible member (see figure 5) having a base (160 is a base), a leg (162) having one end attached to the base (160 is a base) and a second end (152B) positioned away from the base (160 is a base), the second end (152B) of the leg (162) having an interface coupling member (166) attached thereto.
Regarding claim 25, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the wedge type electrical power connector assembly according to claim 24, wherein the flexible member (see figure 5) comprises an elastomeric member (¶0123).
Regarding claim 26, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the wedge type electrical power connector according to claim 25, wherein the first longitudinal side wall (129) includes at least one lead-in (see lead-in on 128 in figure 1), and wherein the second longitudinal side wall (wall on the opposite side of 129) includes a mounting element (132) used to couple the interface (120) to the interface coupling member (166).
Regarding claim 27, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the wedge type electrical power connector according to claim 26, wherein the at least one lead-in (see lead-in on 128 in figure 1) is positioned in proximity (see figure 8) to the lower concave longitudinal contact surface (126A).
Regarding claim 28, Murugiah teaches (figures 1 – 17) the wedge type electrical power connector according to claim 26, wherein the mounting element (132) comprises a channel (Examiner interprets 132 as being a channel for 160 to slide into).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed to the objection to the abstract of the disclosure, while the MPEP notes that the 50 – 150-word range is a guideline, the abstract must still sufficiently summarize the invention to inform readers whether consultation of the full text is warranted. At 42 words, the current abstract is insufficiently detailed to meet this purpose. Applicant is encouraged to expand the abstract to more fully convey the invention’s key features.
Regarding the arguments directed to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant argues that “Applicants find no teaching or suggestion in Kossak and/or Murugiah et al. of an interface for use with a wedge type cable connector, wherein the lower concave longitudinal contact surface is configured to receive a single conductor cable and comprises a convex longitudinal bump as recited in independent claim 1.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kossak et al. already discloses a lower concave longitudinal contact surface (i.e. surface of 52) comprising a convex longitudinal bump (i.e. 52). Such a structure is inherently capable of receiving a single conductor cable. Apparatus claims cover what a device is capable of doing, and functional language like “configured to”, and “adapted to” does not distinguish over the prior art if the prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the recited function (see MPEP § 2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claim does not recite any structural modification that would limit the surface specifically to a single conductor cable or prevent it from receiving other conductors.
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 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