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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
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 1-5 and 8-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2020/0259277 A1), Matsuo (US 2021/0075146 A1), and Komoto (US 10886650 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Nakamura (Figures 16 and 18) teaches a connector for connecting a conductor portion of a covered electric wire to a flexible conductor exposed on at least one surface of a sheet type conductive member, the covered electric wire comprising an insulating cover portion covering an outer periphery of the conductor portion, the connector comprising:
a first insulator (i.e. 82) including a first retaining surface (i.e. bottom surface of 82) and a protrusion portion (i.e. 86); and a second insulator (i.e. 80) including a second retaining surface (i.e. top surface of 80) opposed to the first retaining surface and a recess portion (i.e. 36) formed in the second retaining surface and corresponding to the protrusion portion, and at least part of the protrusion portion is housed in the recess portion, whereby the conductor portion of the covered electric wire is electrically connected to the flexible conductor of the sheet type conductive member in the recess portion.
But does not specifically teach the protrusion portion formed on and protruding from the first retaining surface, the first insulator includes a first insertion groove formed on the first retaining surface and the second insulator includes a second insertion groove formed on the second retaining surface, the first insertion groove and the second insertion groove working together to form an insulating cover retaining portion to retain the insulating cover portion of the covered electric wire when the first insulator and the second insulator are connected to each other,
wherein the first insulator and the second insulator are connected to each other with the insulating cover portion of the covered electric wire being retained in the insulating cover retaining portion and the sheet type conductive member and the conductor portion of the covered electric wire being held between the first retaining surface and the second retaining surface.
However, Matsuo (Figures 4, 5, and 9) teaches the first insulator includes a first insertion groove (i.e. 14D) formed on the first retaining surface and the second insulator includes a second insertion groove (i.e. 12D) formed on the second retaining surface, the first insertion groove and the second insertion groove working together to form an insulating cover retaining portion (i.e. 12D and 14D) to retain the insulating cover portion of the covered electric wire when the first insulator and the second insulator are connected to each other,
wherein the first insulator and the second insulator are connected to each other with the insulating cover portion of the covered electric wire being retained in the insulating cover retaining portion and the sheet type conductive member and the conductor portion of the covered electric wire being held between the first retaining surface and the second retaining surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nakamura to have the first and second insertion grooves as taught by Matsuo so as to create a more snug fit around the insulation and conductor portions of the covered wire and flexible cable.
Furthermore, Komoto (Figure 3) teaches a protrusion portion (i.e. 15) formed on the first retaining surface (i.e. 14A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nakamura and Matsuo to have the protrusion portion formed on the first retaining surface. Making these separate parts integral provides a better seal to help protect from foreign matter.
Regarding claim 2: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion portion has a prismatic shape (i.e. as taught by Nakamura and Komoto), and the recess portion has a cylindrical inner surface (i.e. Komoto 12B as in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second insulator taught by Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura to have a cylindrical inner surface as taught by Komoto so as to better isolate each of the conductor splices from one another.
Regarding claim 3: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion portion has a circular cylindrical shape (i.e. as in Komoto figure 12), and the recess portion has a cylindrical inner surface (i.e. as 12B has in Komoto figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the protrusion and recess portion taught by Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura to have cylindrical shape and a complimentary cylindrical surface as taught by Komoto. Komoto teaches a number of different design choices for the protrusions as in figures 4, 5, 12-18, and 21 and it would be obvious to select one for the desired connection.
Regarding claim 4: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, Komoto further teaches wherein the protrusion portion has an intermediate retaining portion of groove shape (i.e. groove between the top cone and base contact of figure 16) for retaining an intermediate part of the conductor portion of the covered electric wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nakamura, Komoto, and Mastuo to have the intermediate retaining portion taught by Komoto since piercing the substrate this way improves electrical connection and mechanical securement.
Regarding claim 5: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, Nakamura further teaches further comprising a relay member (i.e. 40) having conductivity and disposed in the recess portion, and wherein the conductor portion of the covered electric wire is electrically connected to the flexible conductor via the relay member (i.e. as in figure 18).
Regarding claim 8: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, wherein the conductor portion of the covered electric wire is brought into direct contact with and electrically connected to the flexible conductor.
Regarding claim 9: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 8, Nakamura teaches further comprising a contact force-securing member (i.e. 40) for securing a contact force between the conductor portion and the flexible conductor, the contact force-securing member being disposed on an outside of the conductor portion and the flexible conductor that are in contact with each other in the recess portion (i.e. as in figure 18).
Regarding claim 10: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 9, Nakamura further teaches wherein the contact force-securing member is made of a metal material (i.e. as in paragraph [0037], ln. 5)
but Nakamura does not specifically teach the contact force-securing member has a cylindrical shape.
However, Komoto teaches wherein the contact force-securing member has a cylindrical shape (i.e. as 13 does in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the contact force-securing member taught by Nakamura to have a cylindrical shape as taught by Komoto since this provides better surface contact with the flat flexible cable.
Regarding claim 11: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, Nakamura further teaches wherein the sheet type conductive member extends in a predetermined direction from the first insulator and the second insulator along the first retaining surface and the second retaining surface, and the covered electric wire extends in an opposite direction of the predetermined direction from the first insulator and the second insulator along the first retaining surface and the second retaining surface (i.e. as in figure 18).
Regarding claim 12: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, Nakamura (Figure 18) further teaches wherein one of the first insulator and the second insulator includes a tip retaining portion (i.e. portion between 40 and 86 included in 80) for retaining a tip of the conductor portion of the covered electric wire.
Regarding claim 13: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 12, Nakamura further teaches wherein the tip retaining portion includes a slit (i.e. portion between 40 and 86 is a slit) in which the tip of the conductor portion is inserted.
Claims 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Matsuo, Komoto, and Hashiguchi (US 2021/0104824 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 5, Komoto (Figure 3) further teaches wherein the relay member (i.e. 13) includes a tubular portion (i.e. 13A) of cylindrical shape,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the relay taught by Nakamura to have a tubular portion as taught by Komoto since surrounding the protrusion from all sides provides more contact area between the relay, conductors, and protrusion.
Now, in combination, Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the flexible conductor is held between an outer surface of the protrusion portion and an inner surface of the tubular portion (i.e. as in Nakamura figure 18 per the combination),
but do not further teach the conductor portion of the electric wire is held between an outer surface of the tubular portion and an inner surface of the recess portion.
However, Hashiguchi (Figure 12) teaches the conductor portion (i.e. 21A) of the electric wire is held between an outer surface of the tubular portion (i.e. outer surface of 15D) and an inner surface of the recess portion (i.e. 12B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of the connector taught by Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura to hold the wire between the outer surface of the tubular portion and the inner surface of the recess portion as taught by Hashiguchi because this allows the tubular portion to better conform around the flexible conductor to the surface of the protrusion, thereby providing better contact area with the flexible conductor, while still accommodating and connecting the electric wire.
Regarding claim 7: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 5, Komoto (Figure 3) teaches wherein the relay member (i.e. 13) includes a tubular portion (i.e. 13A) of cylindrical shape,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the relay taught by Nakamura to have a tubular portion as taught by Komoto since surrounding the protrusion from all sides provides more contact area between the relay, conductors, and the protrusion.
Now, in combination, Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the conductor portion of the electric wire is held between an outer surface of the protrusion portion and an inner surface of the tubular portion (i.e. as in Nakamura figure 18 per the combination),
but do not specifically teach the flexible conductor is held between an outer surface of the tubular portion and an inner surface of the recess portion.
However, Hashiguchi (Figure 12) teaches the flexible conductor (i.e. 21A) is held between an outer surface of the tubular portion (i.e. 15D) and an inner surface of the recess portion (i.e. 12B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of the connector taught by Nakamura and Komoto to hold the flexible conductor between an outer surface of the tubular portion and an inner surface of the recess portion so the flexible conductor can better conform to the tubular portion, thereby providing better contact area between the two.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Matsuo, Komoto, and Carbone (US 2016/0093995 A1).
Regarding claim 15: Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura teach the connector according to claim 1, Nakamura (Figure 22) further teaches wherein one of the first insulator and the second insulator includes a boss (i.e. 816), another one of the first insulator and the second insulator includes a through-hole (i.e. 836) which the boss penetrates,
but do not specifically teach a head of the boss having penetrated the through-hole is thermally deformed.
However, Carbone (Figure 6) teaches a head of the boss (i.e. 50)having penetrated the through-hole (i.e. 34)is thermally deformed (i.e. heat staking of paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nakamura, Matsuo, and Nakamura to have a thermally deformed head of the boss as taught by Carbone since this is a matter of design choice amongst known methods of permanently securing bosses within a through-hole.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Matsuo, Komoto, Carbone, and Bishop (US 2012/0003850 A1).
Regarding claim 16: Nakamura, Matsuo, Komoto, and Carbone teach the connector according to claim 15, but do not specifically teach wherein the boss includes a slit in which the conductor portion of the covered electric wire is inserted.
However, Bishop (Figures 1 and 10) teaches wherein the boss (i.e. 44) includes a slit (i.e. bottom slit of 44) in which the conductor portion (i.e. 58) of the electric wire (i.e. 54) is inserted (i.e. as in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Nakamura, Matsuo, Komoto, and Carbone with the boss including a slit and arrangement taught by Biship to better secure the electric wire between the two insulators without damaging the electric wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Matsuo does not teach the insulating cover retaining portion as claimed. The examiner recognizes that 14D of Matsuo and the instant groove disclose differing structures, however, the cited structures of Matsuo meets the limitations of the grooves as claimed. While the edge of Matsuo’s 14 is smooth, the step 14D teaches a groove as a cut out portion around the circumference of the insulator 14. This groove works with the grooves 12D to retain the insulation portion of the cable, while the conductor is retained further within the connector as in figure 9. As each of the cited retaining surfaces have grooves operating in conjunction with one-another to retain the cable, Nakamura, Matsuo, and Komoto indeed teach the connector as claimed.
Applicant further argues that 21 of Matsuo is not a covered electric wire and Matsuo would therefore have no idea how to hold an insulating cover portion of a covered electric wire. Based on the claim language alone, Matsuo need not specifically teach the covered electric wire, because Matsuo’s connector is inherently configured to retain the intended use covered electric wire. Furthermore, Matsuo does teach an embodiment in figure 26 where both sides of the conductor are covered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights