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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/18/2025. These drawings are approved.
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.
Claims 11-19 are 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 11 recites the limitation "the cable shield" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11, line 2 recites, “a cable having a connecting portion connecting to a cable shield connection”. Therefore, it is not clear whether “the cable shield” is referring to “a cable” or “a cable shield connection”.
In claim 15, while a connecting portion of a cable and an insertion opening of an assembly housing have structural relationships with a plug-in connector, the connecting portion of the cable and the assembly housing do not have structural relationship with each other.
Also, in claim 15, it is not clear how the insertion of the plug-in connector into the insertion opening of the assembly housing allows a conical shielding portion of a shielding spring to contact the insertion opening of the assembly housing. Basically, claim 15 does not recite how the conical shielding portion of the shielding spring is structurally related with the plug-in connector and the assembly housing.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cable shield" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19, line 3 recites, “the cable has a connecting portion” and line 11 recites, “a cable shield connection including a connecting portion”. Therefor, it is not clear whether “the cable shield” in line 12 is referring to “the cable” in line 3 or “a cable shield connection” in line 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsumoto et al (US 6,152,745) in view of Bartholomä et al (US 6,376,766B1).
Matsumoto discloses a cable shield connection for a plug-in connector system, comprising: a connecting portion (not shown, see column 5, lines 35-39) connecting with a connecting portion 19 of a plug-in connector (not labeled, see Fig. 3) of the plug-in connector system 15; and an assembly housing 11 having an insertion opening 13 receiving the plug-in connector (see Fig. 3), the insertion opening 13 contacts a conical shielding portion 16b of a shielding contact 16 when the plug-in connector is inserted (see Fig. 3).
Regarding, the shielding contact 16, Matsumoto does not disclose the shielding contact 16 to be a shielding spring contact. However, claim 15 does not specifically recite the conical shielding portion to have a spring structure and does not recite any spring structure forming the shielding spring contact. Therefore, it is not clear how the shielding spring contact has or forms a spring portion or structure. In conclusion, the examiner will consider “the shielding spring contact” as only a naming convention and will not give patentable weight. Since claim 15 only recites that the conical shielding portion to contact the insertion opening of the assembly housing, Matsumoto clearly discloses that the conical shielding portion 16b of the shielding contact 16 contacts with the insertion opening 13 when the plug-in connector is inserted in the insertion opening 13 (see Fig. 3).
With patentable weight given to “the shielding spring contact”, the shielding contact 16 of Matsumoto does not have any spring portion. Therefore, the shielding contact 16 of Matsumoto does not discloses “a shielding spring contact”.
On the other hand, Bartholomä discloses A cable shield connection comprising: an assembly housing 5 having an insertion opening 7 receiving a plug-in connector 2, the insertion opening 7 contacts a conical shielding portion 8 of a shielding spring contact 6 when the plug-in connector is inserted (see Fig. 2).
Furthermore, Matsumoto also discloses in Prior Art Figures 1-2 a shielding spring contact 5 having a plurality of spring piece portions 5a elastically contacting with an insertion opening 2a of an assembly housing 2. In conclusion, the shielding contact can be made with or without a spring contact portion.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shielding contact taught by Matsumoto such that it would have a spring portion as taught by Bartholomä because the shielding contact can be made with or without a spring contact portion. The shielding contact without a spring portion provide a friction contact and the shielding contact with the spring portion provides elastic contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Reason for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In combination with all the limitations recited in the independent claim, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious a shielding spring contact for an electrical plug-in connector for an electrical plug-in connector system, comprising: a sleeve-shaped main body having a cylindrical base portion, a conical shielding portion extending from the cylindrical base portion, and a plurality of passage openings by which the shielding spring contact is arranged on a cable of the electrical plug-in connector, the conical shielding portion has a plurality of apertures extending along a longitudinal direction of the shielding spring contact and is elastically deformable, the shielding spring contact is contactable with an assembly housing of a cable shield connection of the plug-in connector system via the conical shielding portion, a current of the braid can be diverted to the assembly housing via contact between the conical shielding portion and the assembly housing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831