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 .
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.
Claims 7 – 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,381,752 (“Kaehny”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0181747 (“Yanagida”).
Regarding claim 7, Kaehny discloses a contact-protected screw connection, comprising:
a male screw connector (31);
a female screw connector (32),
wherein the male screw connector (31) has a connecting screw (6) which extends along a longitudinal axis in a screwing direction toward the female screw connector, and is screwed into a nut portion (6) of the female screw connector (32), the connecting screw having a connecting screw head (47, see Fig. 3);
a first electrical conductor (5) through which the connecting screw extends along the longitudinal axis, the connecting screw head being arranged on a screw head side (upper side of 5), facing away from the nut portion (6 of member 32), of the first electric conductor;
a first protective cover (34) for the male screw connector, which cover, in relation to the longitudinal axis, surrounds the connecting screw head spaced apart radially at least in portions (see 34 spaced radially from portion 46, Fig. 5);
a second protective cover (34) for the female screw connector;
a second electrical conductor (5) from which the nut portion extends at least in regions in a nut direction counter to the screwing direction toward the first electrical conductor (see Fig. 3),
wherein the second protective cover surrounds this region of the nut portion at least in portions and spaced apart radially from the latter,
wherein the nut portion extends in the nut direction from the second electrical conductor as far as a nut end surface (see Fig. 5),
wherein the nut portion has a nut cap (15), the nut cap surrounding the nut portion radially at least in portions (see Fig. 3), and protruding at least in portions beyond the nut portion in the nut direction (see Fig. 3), and the nut cap further having a nut cap recess (hole through 15), through which the connecting screw is screwed into the nut portion (see Figs. 3 and 5); and
a connecting sleeve (11) of the male screw connector, which connecting sleeve connects the first and the second electrical conductors in an electrically conducting manner and surrounds the connecting screw spaced apart radially and within the first protective cover (see Fig. 3).
Kaehny does not disclose wherein the connecting sleeve protrudes at least in portions beyond the first protective cover in the screwing direction.
However, Yanagida teaches a screw connection assembly, including a screw member with a connecting sleeve which protrudes at least in portions beyond a protective cover in a screwing direction (see sleeve members 116/66A beyond cover 70 in Figures 15 and 19). It would have been obvious to form the cover and sleeve so that the sleeve protruded beyond the cover as taught by Yanagida, because this decreases the material used in forming the cover on the first connector, decreasing manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 8, Kaehny discloses the connecting screw head is covered at least in portions by a screw head cover (34).
Regarding claim 8, Kaehny discloses the screw head cover (34) has a screw head profile for applying a torque to the screw head of the connecting screw (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kaehny discloses the connecting sleeve is configured as a separate component with respect to the first electrical conductor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kaehny discloses the nut portion is configured in a nut sleeve (18 is a sleeve portion of the nut), and
the nut sleeve is connected in a positively locking or integrally joined manner to the second electrical conductor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kaehny discloses the connecting sleeve (11) has a first axial end surface which is oriented orthogonally with respect to the longitudinal axis, and a second axial end surface which is spaced apart axially from and is parallel to the first axial end surface (11 has upper and lower ends),
the first axial end surface makes contact with the first electrical conductor (see Fig. 3), and
the second axial end surface makes contact with the second electrical conductor (electrical connection with 5, and physical/electrical connection with lower 11/5, see Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue, repeatedly, that Yanagida either is not analogous art and/or that Yanagida does not teach a similar male screw connector with a connecting sleeve protruding beyond a cover as required by the claims, therefore the combination of Kaehny and Yanagida is insufficient. Examiner cannot concur.
As explained above, Yanagida is introduced as a reference which teaches the claimed cover structural details which Kaehny lacks. Yanagida is detailed as being a screw connector, with a cover, and with a sleeve connector member. This situates Yanagida in relation to the screw connector with cover and sleeve of Kaehny as plainly analogous and similar structurally in such a way as to allow a person of ordinary skill to apply the teachings of Yanagida to Kaehny. Furthermore, Figure 19 of Yanagida clearly illustrates the connecting sleeve portion protruding beyond the cover as required by the claims.
Furthermore, to the extent that Applicant argues that connector type of Yanagida is different to Kaehny, for instance because Yanagida is discussed as a relay connector, and therefore Yanagida is nonanalogus art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as explained above bother references utilize screw connectors and sleeve connective members which bridge two terminal structures. These references are both in the same field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to each other because they utilize similar connective structures.
Finally, it appears that Applicant argues that the rationale presented for the modification of Kaehny in view of Yanagida is insufficient, to decrease material use and save manufacturing cost, is “incompatible with the specificity of the claim language” as argued in page 15 of Applicant’s remarks. A rational to modify or combine prior art references may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also MPEP §2144 (I). Here, the stated rational of modifying the cover structure so that the cover no longer extends past the sleeve in order to save on materials is derived from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, in that decreasing the size and complexity of the case helps save money due to savings in materials and manufacturing complexity.
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 PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights