DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/6/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GERMANY 102022116368.7, filed on 06/30/2022.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
This Office action is being issued as a second non-final Office action. In view of the new amendments made in the response filed on 5/6/2026, the claims have been reconsidered and are rejected based on newly cited prior art, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 2, recites “is a protrusion and the interlocking end corner of an other…”. It should be amended to “is a protrusion and the interlocking end contour of an other…”. It appears to be a typographical error because the structure Applicant refers to appears to be the “interlocking end contour” as previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Droesbeke (US 20210119385).
Regarding claim 1, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) an electrical connection device, comprising:
a cable (400); and
an electrical plug device (see figure 4J) having a crimping element (100; see figure 1) with a crimping sleeve (110) crimped on the cable (400), a pair of legs (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) of the crimping sleeve (see figure 1) that are bent toward one another to enclose the cable are welded together (¶0032), the legs (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) of the crimping sleeve (see figure 1) have a pair of interlocking end contours (122, 123).
Regarding claim 2, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the electrical connection device of claim 1, further comprising a support sleeve (200, 200’, 410) disposed under the crimping sleeve (see figures 4H and 8).
Regarding claim 4, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the electrical connection device of claim 1, wherein the legs (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) are welded in an engagement region of the interlocking end contours (¶0014; ¶0032).
Regarding claim 6, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) a wiring harness, comprising:
an electrical connection device (10) including a cable (400) and an electrical plug device (see figure 4J) having a crimping element (100; see figure 1) with a crimping sleeve (110) crimped on the cable (400), a pair of legs (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) of the crimping sleeve (see figure 1) that are bent toward one another to enclose the cable are welded together (¶0032), the legs of the crimping sleeve (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) have a pair of interlocking end contours (122, 123).
Regarding claim 7, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) a method of manufacturing an electrical connection device, comprising:
providing a cable (400) and an electrical plug device (100), the electrical plug device (100) has a housing (300), a plug contact element (530, 540), and a crimping element (100; see figure 1) with a crimping sleeve (110);
connecting the crimping element (see figure 1) to the cable (400) by crimping a pair of legs of the crimping sleeve (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) around the cable (400); and
welding (¶0032), after connecting the crimping element (see figure 1) to the cable (400), the legs of the crimping sleeve to one another (see figures 4I and 4J).
Regarding claim 19, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the electrical connection device of claim 1, wherein the interlocking end contour (122) of one of the legs (see leg where 122 is located) is a protrusion (i.e. see figure 1) and the interlocking end corner of an other of the legs (see leg where 123 is located) is a groove (see figure 1), the protrusion is received in the groove (in figure 1, the protrusion 122 is received in groove 123).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droesbeke (US 20210119385) in view of Baldauf (US 9270037, cited in the IDS on 5/3/2024) and further in view of Saito (US 6648690).
Regarding claim 5, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) an electrical connection device, comprising:
a cable (400) having a shielding (410);
an electrical plug device (see figure 4J) having a crimping element (100) electrically contacting the shielding (410, see figures 4H and 4I), the crimping element (100) has a crimping sleeve (110).
But Droesbeke does not explicitly disclose a support sleeve disposed between the shielding and an exposed end region of the shielding, the crimping sleeve is positioned around an outer circumference of the cable and encloses the exposed end region, the crimping sleeve is welded to the support sleeve, the support sleeve has a pair of free ends spaced apart from each other.
Baldauf teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector comprising a support sleeve (4) disposed between the shielding (3) and an exposed end region (see figure 1) of the shielding (3), the crimping sleeve (5, see figure 1) is positioned around an outer circumference of the cable (1) and encloses the exposed end region (see figure 1), the crimping sleeve (5, see figure 1) is welded to the support sleeve (i.e. column 2, lines 63 – 37 to column 3, lines 1 – 10).
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 Droesbeke with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide a support sleeve disposed between the shielding and an exposed end region of the shielding, the crimping sleeve is positioned around an outer circumference of the cable and encloses the exposed end region, the crimping sleeve is welded to the support sleeve, to improve the positive fit and force locking of the connection.
However, Droesbeke and Baldauf do not explicitly disclose wherein the support sleeve has a pair of free ends spaced apart from each other.
Saito teaches (figure 3) a connector wherein the support sleeve (20) has a pair of free ends spaced apart from each other (see gap 30 that separates the free ends of 20).
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 Droesbeke and Baldauf with the connector as disclosed by Saito to provide wherein the support sleeve has a pair of free ends spaced apart from each other, because the use of a support sleeve having free ends that are spaced apart is a known configuration that permits the sleeve to be opened and positioned around the cable shielding during assembly without requiring the sleeve to be slid over an end of the cable. Such configuration further accommodates dimensional variations of the cable and shielding while maintaining the support sleeve around the shielding.
Claim(s) 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droesbeke (US 20210119385) in view of Matsuo (US 20150357725).
Regarding claim 8, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 7.
But Droesbeke does not explicitly disclose wherein the welding is performed with a laser.
Matsuo teaches (figures 1 – 9) a connector wherein the welding is performed with a laser (i.e. welding is performed by “FL” as seen in figure 4A, “FL” being a fiber laser welding apparatus; ¶0039).
Droesbeke teaches welding (i.e. ¶0032), but does not expressly teach that the welding is performed with a laser. Matsuo teaches that the welding is performed with a laser welding apparatus (¶0039). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the welding in Droesbeke using the fiber laser welding apparatus of Matsuo because laser welding is a known welding technique for performing such welding operations. The modification would have amounted to the predictable substitution of one known welding technique for another to obtain the predictable result of forming the weld.
Regarding claim 9, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 8, further comprising connecting a support sleeve (200, 200’, 410) to the cable by crimping (¶0077; ¶0083).
Regarding claim 10, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 9, wherein the legs of the crimping sleeve (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) are welded together at a level of the support sleeve (200, 200’, 410; ¶0014, ¶0032).
Regarding claim 11, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 10, further comprising a cable (400) having a conductor (see conductor inside cable in figure 5) and an inner sheath (see inner sheath where the conductors inside the cable are located in figure 5) surrounding the conductor (see figure 5).
Claim(s) 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droesbeke (US 20210119385) in view of Matsuo (US 20150357725) and further in view of Baldauf (US 9270037, cited in the IDS on 5/3/2024).
Regarding claim 12, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 11.
But Droesbeke and Matsuo do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner sheath is surrounded by a shielding, which is surrounded by a cable sheath.
Baldauf teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector wherein the inner sheath (2) is surrounded by a shielding (3), which is surrounded by a cable sheath (see second 3; 4; 5).
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 Droesbeke and Matsuo with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide wherein the inner sheath is surrounded by a shielding, which is surrounded by a cable sheath, because Baldauf demonstrates that such a layered arrangement is a known configuration in the art, and provides a predictable configuration for shielding and protecting the underlying cable components.
Regarding claim 13, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 12.
But Droesbeke and Matsuo do not explicitly disclose wherein a section of the cable sheath is removed, a shielding braid of the shielding is cut to length, a section of the inner sheath is removed, and the crimping element is connected to the cable while enclosing the shielding.
Baldauf teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector wherein a section of the cable sheath (see second 3; 4) is removed, a shielding braid of the shielding (3) is cut to length (see figure 1), a section of the inner sheath (2) is removed, and the crimping element (5) is connected to the cable (1) while enclosing the shielding (3).
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 Droesbeke and Matsuo with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide wherein a section of the cable sheath is removed, a shielding braid of the shielding is cut to length, a section of the inner sheath is removed, and the crimping element is connected to the cable while enclosing the shielding, because Baldauf demonstrates that such a layered arrangement is a known configuration in the art, and provides a predictable configuration for shielding and protecting the underlying cable components.
Regarding claim 14, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 13, wherein the legs of the crimping sleeve (see legs where 125 and 123 are located in figure 4H) abut against an outer circumference of the shielding (i.e. shielding 3 being provided by Baldauf).
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 Droesbeke and Matsuo with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide wherein the legs of the crimping sleeve abut against an outer circumference of the shielding. The modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions because the shielding in Baldauf provides electromagnetic shielding while the crimping sleeve in Droesbeke maintains mechanical connection with a surrounding cable layer. Since the legs of the crimping sleeve in Droesbeke are configured to bend into engagement with the outer circumference of the surrounding sleeve, the modified assembly would result in the legs of Droesbeke abutting against an outer circumference of the shielding provided by Baldauf, and provides a predictable configuration for shielding and protecting the underlying cable components
Regarding claim 15, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 13.
But Droesbeke and Matsuo do not explicitly disclose wherein the crimping sleeve is welded to an end region of the shielding that is exposed after the cable sheath has been cut.
Baldauf teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector wherein the crimping sleeve (5, see figure 1) is welded to an end region of the shielding (3; column 2, line 63 – column 3, lines 1 – 10) that is exposed after the cable sheath (see second 3; 4; 5) has been cut.
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 Droesbeke and Matsuo with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide wherein the crimping sleeve is welded to an end region of the shielding that is exposed after the cable sheath has been cut, to improve the reliability of the connector during the crimping process.
Regarding claim 16, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 13, wherein the crimping sleeve (see figure 1) is welded to the support sleeve (200, 200’, 410; ¶0032).
Claim(s) 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droesbeke (US 20210119385) in view of Matsuo (US 20150357725) and further in view of Baldauf (US 9270037, cited in the IDS on 5/3/2024) and Liptak (US 20170110222).
Regarding claim 17, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 13.
But Droesbeke, Matsuo, and Baldauf do not explicitly disclose wherein, after the shielding braid has been cut, a film disposed between the shielding braid and the inner sheath is cut off.
Liptak teaches (figures 7 – 8) a connector wherein, after the shielding braid (124) has been cut, a film (116) disposed between the shielding braid (124) and the inner sheath (112) is cut off.
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 Droesbeke, Matsuo, and Baldauf with the connector as disclosed by Liptak to provide wherein, after the shielding braid has been cut, a film disposed between the shielding braid and the inner sheath is cut off, to improve the amount of data the connector can transfer.
Regarding claim 18, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 13.
But Droesbeke, Matsuo, and Baldauf do not explicitly disclose wherein, after the inner sheath has been cut, the plug contact element is connected to the conductor and arranged in a contact element chamber of the housing.
Liptak teaches (figures 7 – 8, 13 – 14) a connector wherein, after the inner sheath (112) has been cut, the plug contact element (see figure 13) is connected to the conductor (102b, 104b) and arranged in a contact element chamber (128) of the housing (174a, 174b).
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 Droesbeke, Matsuo, and Baldauf with the connector as disclosed by Liptak to provide wherein, after the inner sheath has been cut, the plug contact element is connected to the conductor and arranged in a contact element chamber of the housing, to improve the amount of data the connector can transfer.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droesbeke (US 20210119385) in view of Baldauf (US 9270037, cited in the IDS on 5/3/2024).
Regarding claim 20, Droesbeke teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method of claim 7, further comprising connecting a support sleeve (200, 200’, 410) to the cable (400) by crimping (see figures 4H and 4I).
But Droesbeke does not explicitly disclose the crimping sleeve is connected to the support sleeve with a melted material of a welded connection between the legs of the crimping sleeve.
Baldauf teaches (figures 1 – 4) a connector wherein the crimping sleeve (5) is connected to the support sleeve (4) with a melted material of a welded connection between the legs of the crimping sleeve (column 2, lines 9 – 36).
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 Droesbeke with the connector as disclosed by Baldauf to provide wherein the crimping sleeve is connected to the support sleeve with a melted material of a welded connection between the legs of the crimping sleeve, to provide an improved positive fit between the supporting sleeve and the outer conductor part (column 3, lines 15 – 26 in Baldauf).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1 – 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights