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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9, 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 1, 2, 9, 19, 20, and 22 are amended, claims 7 and 12 are cancelled, and claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-22 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “wherein the at least one means (7) comprises a cutting edge”, which is previously recited in lines 3-4 of claim 9 and, thus, claim 10 fails to further limit the subject mattery of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deily (U.S. Patent No. 7,364,479, previously cited). Regarding claim 1, Deily discloses a connection plug (the part of cable 15 that is plugged into the crimp connector 10 for the purpose of connection) for an electromedical electrode 20, the connection plug comprising: at least one contact pole 115 that is coated with a non-conductive protective layer 13 (see Figures 3 and 4). The recitation “an at least partially openable” fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art because it is respectfully submitted that a layer that can be cut is “at least partially openable”; and the at least one contact pole has, on a side that is averted from the protective layer, a connecting interface for connection to an electrical conductor (see Figure 4, where the direction indicated by L and the extension of cable conductor 15 is considered “averted from the protective layer” and the recitation “of the electromedical electrode” is considered an intended use recitation that fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Deily discloses that at least one of a) the non-conductive protective layer provides protection against external electrical contact by an external element with the at least one contact pole, (b) the protective layer covers the at least one contact pole at least to such an extent that protection against external electrical contact by an external element with the at least one contact pole is ensured, or (c) the protective layer covers the at least one contact pole completely (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Deily discloses that at least one of a) the at least one contact pole is electrically insulated by the protective layer or b) the protective layer is a polymer layer which covers the at least one contact pole (“The crimp connector 10 is bi-directional, does not require removal (e.g., ablation) of cable conductor insulation 13 prior to connecting the crimp connector 10 to the cable conductor 15”, col. 2, ln. 60-63).
Regarding claim 4, Deily discloses that the at least one contact pole is ring-shaped (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Deily discloses that the connection plug has at least two contact poles which are axially spaced apart from each other (see Figure 3, showing two conductive cores 115).
Regarding claim 6, Deily discloses that the at least one contact pole is connectable or connected to an electrical conductor (the rest of cable conductor 15, as shown in the Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Deily discloses that the at least one contact pole has a round or an angular cross section (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Deily discloses an electromedical electrode 20 comprising at least one of a) a connection plug (the part of cable 15 that is plugged into the crimp connector 10 for the purpose of connection) with at least one contact pole 115 that is coated with a non-conductive protective layer 13 which is locally opened at least in part by the connection to at least one mating plug 10/30 plug (see Figure 3 and “when the cable conductors 15 are received in the cavity 65 and the crimp connector 10 is crimped onto the cable conductors 15, the cable conductors 15 are forced against the protrusions 75 such that the sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation 13. As a result, the protrusions 75 contact the conductive cores 115 of the cable conductors 15 and form electrical contact between the crimp connector 10 and the cable conductors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 7-14), the at least one contact pole has, on a side that is averted from the protective layer, a connecting interface for connection to an electrical conductor of the electromedical electrode (see Figure 4, where the direction indicated by L and the extension of cable conductor 15 is considered “averted from the protective layer”).
Regarding claim 21, Deily discloses that at least one of the at least one contact pole of the connection plug or the at least one mating contact pole of the mating plug is connected to an electrical conductor 15 (see Figures 3 and 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-11, 13-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deily (U.S. Patent No. 7,364,479, cited above) in view of Sandstrom (U.S. Patent No. 4,387,727). Regarding claim 9, Deily discloses a mating plug 10/30, comprising: at least one mating contact pole 75; and at least one means 110 for locally opening a non-conductive protective layer of at least one contact pole of the connection plug at least in part in order to establish electrical contact between the at least one contact pole of the connection plug and the at least one mating contact pole of the mating plug when the connection plug is connected to the mating plug (see Figure 3 and “when the cable conductors 15 are received in the cavity 65 and the crimp connector 10 is crimped onto the cable conductors 15, the cable conductors 15 are forced against the protrusions 75 such that the sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation 13. As a result, the protrusions 75 contact the conductive cores 115 of the cable conductors 15 and form electrical contact between the crimp connector 10 and the cable conductors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 7-14). However, while Deily discloses that the at least one means 110 comprises an annular cutting edge (“sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation”, col. 4, ln. 10-11) and it can be seen in Figure 2 that protrusions 75 resemble a screw shape, Deily fails to disclose that means 110 is a screw. Sandstrom teaches using a screw 56 including an annular cutting edge 58 to cut through insulating and provide electrical connection between components (see Figure 2 and “Notice that set screw 56 has pointed tip 58 which is screwed directly into outer conductor coil 32. Pointed tip 58 thus pierces the outer insulation and comes into intimate mechanical and electrical contact with outer conductor coil 32.”, col. 3, ln. 34-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Deily such that means 110 comprises a screw, as taught by Sandstrom, in order to provide electrical connection between components and as it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Deily discloses that the at least one means comprises a cutting edge (“sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation 13”, col. 4, ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 11, Deily discloses that the mating plug has at least one insulation-displacement contact 55 on which the at least one mating contact pole 75 and the at least one means 110 for locally opening the non-conductive protective layer 13 of the at least one contact pole 115 of the connection plug at least in part are formed or arranged (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Deily discloses that the mating plug has at least one of a number of the mating contact poles or a plurality of the means for locally opening the protective layer at least in part, the number of mating contact poles corresponding to the number of the contact poles of the connection plug (as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 there are a plurality of means 110 for locally opening the protection layer).
Regarding claim 14, Deily discloses that the mating plug has at least two of the mating contact poles 75 which are axially spaced apart from each other (see Figure 2, which shows at least two mating contact poles 75 axially spaced apart).
Regarding claim 15, Deily discloses that the mating plug has a pull-out prevention means for the connection plug which is connected to the mating plug (“Additionally, by cutting into the insulation 13, the protrusions 75 assist the crimp connector in securely gripping the cable connectors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 19-22).
Regarding claim 16, Deily discloses that the at least one means provides the pull-out prevention means for the mating plug for the connection plug which is connected to the mating plug (“Additionally, by cutting into the insulation 13, the protrusions 75 assist the crimp connector in securely gripping the cable connectors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 19-22), and the at least one means is oriented transversely or at a right angle to a pull-out direction which is defined by the mating plug (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, Deily discloses that the at least one means is arranged or formed on a support 55 (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Deily discloses that the at least one mating contact pole is connectable or connected to an electrical conductor (“As a result, the protrusions 75 contact the conductive cores 115 of the cable conductors 15 and form electrical contact between the crimp connector 10 and the cable conductors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 11-14).
Regarding claim 19, Deily discloses an electromedical pulse generator (see Figures 3 and 4), comprising at least one mating plug 10/30 as claimed in claim 9 and a connection plug (the part of cable 15 that is plugged into the crimp connector 10 for the purpose of connection) with at least one contact pole 115 that is coated with a non-conductive protective layer 13 which is locally opened at least in part by the connection to the at least one mating plug (see Figure 3 and “when the cable conductors 15 are received in the cavity 65 and the crimp connector 10 is crimped onto the cable conductors 15, the cable conductors 15 are forced against the protrusions 75 such that the sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation 13. As a result, the protrusions 75 contact the conductive cores 115 of the cable conductors 15 and form electrical contact between the crimp connector 10 and the cable conductors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 7-14), the at least one contact pole has, on a side that is averted from the protective layer, a connecting interface for connection to an electrical conductor of the electromedical electrode (see Figure 4, where the direction indicated by L and the extension of cable conductor 15 is considered “averted from the protective layer”).
Regarding claim 22, Deily discloses an electromedical plug-in connection comprising a connection plug (the part of cable 15 that is plugged into the crimp connector 10 for the purpose of connection) with at least one contact pole 115 that is coated with a non-conductive protective layer 13 which is locally opened at least in part by the connection to at least one mating plug 10/30, the at least one contact pole has, on a side that is averted from the protective layer, a connecting interface for connection to an electrical conductor of the electromedical electrode (see Figure 4, where the direction indicated by L and the extension of cable conductor 15 is considered “averted from the protective layer”), and the at least one mating plug 10/30 having at least one mating contact pole 75, and at least one means 110 for locally opening the non-conductive protective layer 13 of the at least one contact pole 115 of the connection plug (the part of cable 15 that is plugged into the crimp connector 10 for the purpose of connection) at least in part in order to establish electrical contact between the at least one contact pole of the connection plug and the at least one mating contact pole of the at least one mating plug when the connection plug is connected to the at least one mating plug(see Figure 3 and “when the cable conductors 15 are received in the cavity 65 and the crimp connector 10 is crimped onto the cable conductors 15, the cable conductors 15 are forced against the protrusions 75 such that the sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation 13. As a result, the protrusions 75 contact the conductive cores 115 of the cable conductors 15 and form electrical contact between the crimp connector 10 and the cable conductors 15.”, col. 4, ln. 7-14). However, while Deily discloses that the at least one means 110 comprises an annular cutting edge (“sharp edges 110 cut through the insulation”, col. 4, ln. 10-11) and it can be seen in Figure 2 that protrusions 75 resemble a screw shape, Deily fails to disclose that means 110 is a screw. Sandstrom teaches using a screw 56 including an annular cutting edge 58 to cut through insulating and provide electrical connection between components (see Figure 2 and “Notice that set screw 56 has pointed tip 58 which is screwed directly into outer conductor coil 32. Pointed tip 58 thus pierces the outer insulation and comes into intimate mechanical and electrical contact with outer conductor coil 32.”, col. 3, ln. 34-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Deily such that means 110 comprises a screw, as taught by Sandstrom, in order to provide electrical connection between components and as it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered and are non-persuasive in part and moot in part. Those arguments which are considered moot will not be answered herein as the rejections to which they apply are no longer pending. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Deily, Applicant argues that Deily merely discloses that the end of a wire is inserted into a crimp connector that can then be crimped to pierce the cover of the wire and does not disclose a "connection plug". However, Applicant fails to present any arguments about the broadest reasonable interpretation for a "connection plug". As previously argued in the Final Rejection of 12/8/2025, the broadest reasonable interpretation for a "connection plug" is a portion of a conductor or cable that is capable of connection to another element. As previously argued, this is satisfied by Deily. Applicant further argues that claim 1 now requires a connecting interface on a side of the contact pole away from the protective layer and "Deily's crimp connector 10 that is used to form the electrical crimped connection with the wires 115 cannot also then be the connecting interface on the side of the contact pole averted from the protective layer". As discussed in the Final Rejection with respect to previous claim 7, in Figure 4, the direction indicated by L and the extension of cable conductor 15 is considered "averted from the protective layer" and the conductor in that direction would be considered the claimed connecting interface. This is a similar configuration as what is shown in Applicant's Figure 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
