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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Franks does not disclose a shield shell, and thus does not teach a recessed part provided in the fixing part of a shield shell as required by the claims. Examiner notes that Ishibashi is cited as disclosing the claimed shield shell, and Franks is cited as teaching the modification of a mounting structure, in other words the shield shell of Ishibashi is modified by Franks and not wholly replaced by a non-shield shell structure.
Applicant further argues that Franks teaches a recessed part of a mounting structure which is mounted on a valve cover, and argues that the valve cover is akin to the wall body of case C of Ishibashi, making the teaching of Frank applicable to modifying the bodily structure of C and not the shield shell 40. Examiner cannot concur. The Frank teaching is introduced to modify the mounting structure of a bolt cap, and this is directed to the fixing structure of two mated bodies. The mated body being modified in Ishibashi is the shell, because the shell is what is being mounted to the upper face of member C, and the shell is what has the existing bolt cap of Ishibashi which is being modified as discussed below.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 9,407,049 (“Ishibashi”) in view of JP 3015382 U (“JP ‘382”) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,895 (“Franks”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishibashi discloses a connector comprising:
a terminal fitting (32) that is physically and electrically connected to a mating terminal fitting (22);
a housing (31) that houses the terminal fitting, and allows a protruded part (the housing portions of 31 above C, see Fig. 4) to protrude from a wall face of a metallic mating wall body (the upper wall of C) in a state of being fitted and connected to a mating fitting part (see Fig. 4);
a shield shell (40) that includes a shield main body (the portion near the lead line of numeral 40 in Figure 3) that is placed over the protruded part of the housing from outside, and a fixing part (portion 41) that is in contact with the wall face of the mating wall body, the fixing part having a bolt insertion hole formed coaxially with a female screw part of the mating wall body (see Fig. 3);
a metallic bolt (BT) that is inserted into the bolt insertion hole and screwed into the female screw part to screw-fix the fixing part to the mating wall body (see Fig. 3); and
a bolt cap (CP) that is placed over a head part of the bolt (CP fits over BT), wherein
the bolt cap includes: a cap main body (the cap CP) that is placed over the head part to hide the head part; a holding body (the portion under bolt BT, see Fig. 1); and a connector body (the tether portion, see Fig. 1) that connects the cap main body and the holding body.
Ishibashi does not disclose the bolt cap holding body as inserted into a holding hole of the fixing part from an inlet to be closely fitted and held to the holding hole, wherein the holding body includes an insertion part that is inserted into the holding hole by inserting its tip from the inlet of the holding hole, and a recessed part is provided in the fixing part of the shield shell for housing the tip between the wall face and an outlet of the holding hole of the fixing part to prevent the tip of the insertion part that is slipped out of the outlet of the holding hole from abutting against the wall face on an insertion port side of the mating wall body in the fitted and connected state.
However, JP ‘382 teaches a bolt cap with a cap main body 1, a holding body 8, and connector body 7 that connects the cap main body and the holding body, the holding body inserted into a holding hole 9 of a fixing part of a case structure from an inlet to be closely fitted and held to the holding hole (see Figs. 4 – 6), wherein the holding body includes an insertion part that is inserted into the holding hole by inserting its tip from the inlet of the holding hole (portions a, b, and the tip are inserted from the inlet into the hole, see Figs. 4 and Fig. 5).
Furthermore, Franks teaches a holding body inserted into a holding hole of a fixing part of the holding body from an inlet (see Fig. 5), wherein the holding body includes an insertion part that is inserted into the holding hole by inserting its tip from the inlet of the holding hole (see portion 117), and a recessed part (23) is provided in the fixing part (11) of the holding body for housing the tip between a wall face and an outlet of the holding hole of the fixing part to prevent the tip of the insertion part that is slipped out of the outlet of the holding hole from abutting against the wall face on an insertion port side of the mating wall body in the fitted and connected state (11 mounts to a panel, see col. 1, lns. 63 – 64, and the holding part 23 is within recess 23, so as to avoid contact with the panel to which 11 mounts).
It would have been obvious to use a holding body which is inserted into an adjacent holding hole as taught by JP ‘382 because this moves the holding body away from the nut and makes it so that the cap is held on the body even when the nut is loosened and/or removed, and furthermore it would have been obvious to provide a recess as taught by Franks because this allows the housing to closely mount to a structure while ensuring that the holding body is attached to the housing in a safe and secure manure.
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘382 further teaches the holding body includes: a locking part that is provided at the tip of the insertion part (8, a, b), the locking part being formed in an umbrella shape with a pointed tip (see Fig. 5), and at an end through an outlet of the holding hole, the locking part is engaged with a wall face of the fixing part on the outlet side (see portion B engaging the wall of 4). It would have been obvious to provide the insertion part as taught by JP ‘382 because this part helps hole the cap to the panel structure.
Claims 2 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of JP ‘382 and Franks, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,494,244 (“Wayland”).
Regarding claim 2, Ishibashi as modified above does not disclose the holding body includes a lip part that is closely fitted around a whole inner peripheral face of the holding hole.
However, Wayland teaches a fastener structure (10) with an insertion part (see leading portion of 10), the fastener structure includes a holding body secured to a holding hole in a panel structure (see Fig. 5), the holding body includes a lip part 16 that is fitted around a whole inner peripheral face of the holding hole (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to make the holding body to be shaped like the fastener structure of Wayland and to have lip parts as taught by Wayland, because these parts help securely hold the fastener structure in the hole and also help provide a seal within the hole.
Regarding claim 6, Wayland further teaches the holding body includes: a locking part (the leading portion includes a member 16 which engages the bottom wall as seen in Figure 5) that is provided at the tip of the insertion part, the locking part being formed in an umbrella shape with a pointed tip (see Figure 5, the leading end includes a pointed tip 18 and is shaped like an umbrella), and at an end through an outlet of the holding hole, the locking part is engaged with a wall face of the fixing part on the outlet side (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to include the leading portion of the fastener as taught by Wayland, because this helps guide the fastener through the hole and also helps retain the fastener by engaging the wall of the panel structure.
Regarding claims 7 – 8, Ishibashi as modified does not disclose wherein the bolt cap includes a covering part that is closely fitted to a peripheral edge of the inlet in an outer wall of the fixing part on the inlet side, the covering part covering over the inlet.
However, Wayland teaches a covering part 12 that is closely fitted to a peripheral edge of an inlet in an outer wall of the fixing part 10 on the inlet side (see Fig. 5), the covering part covering over the inlet (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to include the covering part 12 with the holding body of the bolt cap, because this part provides a broad portion which can be pushed upon to mate the fastener structure with the hole and also covers the inlet hole to provide protection for the hole structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of JP ‘382 and Franks, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,892,020 (“Schoch”).
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi as modified does not disclose wherein the inlet of the holding hole has a chamfered part chamfered around a whole peripheral edge of the inlet, and the tip of the insertion part is formed in a pointed cone shape.
However, JP ‘382 further teaches the tip 8 of the insertion part is formed in a pointed cone shape. Furthermore, Schoch teaches providing a hole for a fastener with a chamfered part chamfered around a whole peripheral edge of an inlet as seen in Figure 3a.
It would have been obvious to have the holding body include a fastener with a cone shaped insertion part as taught by JP ‘382, because this helps ensure that the fastener is guided through the insertion hole, and furthermore it would have been obvious to provide a chamfer at the inlet as taught by Schoch because chamfers help guide fastener structures into an insertion hole.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of JP ‘382 and Franks, and further in view of Wayland and U.S. Pat. No. 11,892,020 (“Schoch”).
Regarding claim 4, Ishibashi as modified does not disclose: the inlet of the holding hole has a chamfered part chamfered around a whole peripheral edge of the inlet, and the tip of the insertion part is formed in a pointed cone shape.
However, Wayland further teaches the holding body includes an insertion part (the leading portion of 10) that is inserted into the holding hole by inserting a tip from the inlet of the holding hole (see Fig. 5), and the tip of the insertion part is formed in a pointed cone shape (see Fig. 5). Furthermore, Schoch teaches providing a hole for a fastener with a chamfered part chamfered around a whole peripheral edge of an inlet as seen in Figure 3a.
It would have been obvious to have the holding body include a fastener with an insertion part shaped and inserted in the hole as taught by Wayland, because this helps ensure that the fastener with the lip part is guided through the insertion hole, and furthermore it would have been obvious to provide a chamfer at the inlet as taught by Schoch because chamfers help guide fastener structures into an insertion hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights