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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract remains objected to. The abstract should be in narrative form (i.e. not claim form) and generally limited to a single paragraph (i.e. not a single sentence).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 refers to the standard MIL-spec. Where a standard is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim scope is uncertain since the standard cannot be used properly to identify any particular material, product or characteristics. Thus, since the meets and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertain, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-4, 10-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 2,740,098) in view of Colescott et al. (US 5,458,507).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a backshell assembly for an aircraft wire harness (intended use), comprising: a backshell housing (11) having a first end (right side in Fig. 1), a second end (left side), a passage extending therebetween, and a radial groove in the passage (receiving 36) near the second end (in proximity, relative term); a connector (17) coupled to the first end of the backshell housing; a header assembly (68) disposed in the passage of the backshell housing at the second end (at least part of header 68 at left side of 11), the header assembly including a header body (68), an insulating core (core of 68) disposed within the header body and including a plurality of openings, and a plurality of tubes (44) extending through a respective one of the plurality of openings to extend past ends (around each opening, left of 68) of the header body; and a first seal (36) disposed in the radial groove and surrounding the header body to seal the backshell housing (11) to the header body (68).
Colescott teaches a second seal (30) disposed within the passage to seal the connector (34) to the radially inner surface of the backshell housing (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a seal, as taught by Colescott, in order to provide efficient sealing at the front end of the backshell assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Phillips discloses the plurality of openings in the insulating core (68) include a plurality of circumferentially spaced openings (Fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of tubes extend through the respective one of the plurality of circumferentially spaced openings and are coupled to the insulating core at the respective opening (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips discloses a plurality of wires (43) extending through a respective one of the plurality of tubes and into the passage (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips discloses the plurality of wires coupled to the respective tube (44).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips discloses a tailpiece (60, 54) coupled to the second end of the backshell housing.
Regarding claim 11, Phillips discloses the backshell housing (11) having threads on a radially outer surface at the second end for mating with threads on a radially inner surface of the tailpiece (60).
Regarding claim 12, Colescott teaches a backshell housing (20) including threads (32) on a radially inner surface at the first end for mating with threads on a radially outer surface of the connector (34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use inner threads and a seal, as taught by Colescott, in order to provide an easily replaceable/repairable connector structure.
Regarding claim 21, to the extent that the references do not disclose the specific standard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the connector to comply to any number of known standards, such as a MIL-spec, in order to satisfy use and design requirements.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Colescott, and further in view of Clark et al. (US 3,031,522).
Regarding claim 5, Clark teaches the use of a plurality of wires (6, 7) being thermocouple wires.
Regarding claim 6, Clark teaches the thermocouple wires including one or more nickel chromium wire and one or more nickel aluminum wire (col. 5, lines 65-71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use thermocouple wires, as taught by Clark, in order to withstand high temperature and vibration.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Colescott, and further in view of Shigezawa et al. (US 5,088,835).
Regarding claim 7, Shigezawa teaches one or more of the wires coupled to a respective sensor (14) in the passage.
Regarding claim 8, Shigezawa teaches the sensor being a cold junction compensation temperature sensor (14).
Regarding claim 9, Shigezawa teaches the sensor (14) coupled to an electrical wire that is coupled to a contact (A) in the connector (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a sensor, as taught by Shigezawa, in order to provide the desire compensation to the apparatus.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 2,740,098)in view of Shigezawa et al. (US 5,088,835).
Regarding claim 14, Phillips discloses a backshell assembly comprising: a backshell housing (11) having a first end (right side), a second end (left side), a passage extending therebetween, and a radial groove (at 36) in the passage near the second end (in proximity, relative term); a header assembly (68) disposed in the passage of the backshell housing, the header assembly including a header body, an insulating core disposed within and coupled to the header body and including a plurality of openings, and a plurality of tubes (44) extending through a respective one of the plurality of openings, each tube coupled to the insulating core (68) at the respective one of the openings; a seal (36) disposed in the radial groove and surrounding the header body to seal the backshell housing to the header body; and a plurality of wires (43) extending through a respective one of the plurality of tubes into the passage and being coupled to the respective one of the plurality of tubes (44).
Phillips discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the header body and the insulating core being separate. Shigezawa teaches an insulating core (37) separate from the header body (35) disposed within and coupled to the header body and including a plurality of opening (receiving wires 27, 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a separate header body and core, as taught by Shigenzawa, in order limit thermal transmission, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlinchman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 16, Phillips discloses a tailpiece (60, 54) coupled to the second end of the backshell housing, wherein the backshell housing has threads on a radially outer surface at the second end for mating with threads on a radially inner surface of the tailpiece (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Shigezawa teaches one or more cold junction compensation temperature sensors (14) disposed in the passage, wherein one or more of the plurality of wires are coupled to a respective one of the one or more cold junction compensation temperature sensors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use sensors, as taught by Shigezawa, in order to provide the desire compensation to the apparatus.
Claims 18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Harootion (US 4,441,777, previously cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 18, Phillips discloses a backshell assembly comprising: a backshell housing (11) having a first end, a second end, a passage extending therebetween; a connector (17) coupled to the first end of the backshell housing; a header assembly (68) disposed in the passage of the backshell housing, the header assembly including a header body, an insulating core disposed within the header body and including a plurality of openings, and a plurality of tubes (44) extending through a respective one of the plurality of openings; and a plurality of wires (43) extending through a respective one of the plurality of tubes and into the passage.
Harootion teaches an arrangement comprising a metallic header body (46), a ceramic insulting core (54) disposed within the body, and a plurality of metallic tubes (48, 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a combination of ceramic and metallic materials, as taught by Harootion, in order to improve durability at elevated temperatures in liquid or gaseous environments (Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Phillips discloses the backshell (11) housing including a radial groove (at 36) in the passage, and the assembly further includes a seal (36) disposed in the radial groove and surrounding the header body.
Regarding claim 22, Harootion teaches the ceramic insulating core coupled to the metallic header body. The examiner notes that the claim describes a process of manufacturing (i.e. brazing) which is incidental to the claim apparatus. Please note that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. It is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to couple the core and the header with a number of coupling methods, such as brazing, in order to securely fix the assembly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Harootion in view of Shigezawa et al. (US 5,088,835).
Regarding claim 19, Shigezawa teaches one or more cold junction compensation temperature sensors (14) disposed in the passage, wherein one or more of the plurality of wires are coupled to a respective one of the one or more cold junction compensation temperature sensors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use sensors, as taught by Shigezawa, in order to provide the desire compensation to the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument against Phillips and Colescott, please note that 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). Please note that the location of the nut does not preclude the use of a second seal. Nonetheless, please note that the nut of Colescott is also on the outer surface.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a seal, as taught by Colescott, in order to provide efficient sealing at the front end of the backshell assembly.
In response to Applicant's arguments regarding claim 18, please note “coupled” does not require that the part be previously separate. Additionally, Harootion teaches separate parts/materials. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a combination of ceramic and metallic materials, as taught by Harootion, in order to improve durability at elevated temperatures in liquid or gaseous environments (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights