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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not provide basis for a MIL-spec connector.
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 is 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 § 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.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips (US 2,740,098).
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 and are 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).
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).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Shigezawa et al. (US 5,088,835).
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 and 20 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.
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 with respect to the claim have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 571-272-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833