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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 16, “but” should be --nut--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank, Jr. (US 4,147,446, cited on IDS) in view of Ruggiero (US 11,309,642).
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses a split bolt assembly comprising: a split bolt (16) including a head portion (16), first threaded leg (12), a second threaded leg (12), and a cavity (20) formed between the head portion, the first threaded leg, and the second threaded leg; a piercing blade holder (22) configured to fit within the cavity; a reinforcement shim (18) configured to fit within the cavity; and a nut (14) configured to fit and be torqued around the first threaded leg and the second threaded leg, wherein a first cable is configured to fit within the cavity between the head portion and the piercing blade holder, and wherein a second cable is configured to fit within the cavity between the reinforcement shim and the piercing blade holder.
Ruggiero teaches a piercing blade holder (82, 100, 102) including a slot (88) and made from a compressible, electrically non-conductive, material (e.g. 100 is made of flexible rubber) configured to compress when a compressive force is applied and decompress when the compressive force is removed; a piercing blade (90) configured to be held securely thing the slot (88) of the piercing blade holder (in at least one direction), the piercing blade made from an electrically conductive material (i.e. conductive body 92); wherein when the actuator/nut (32/320) is torqued in a first direction the actuator is configured to move in a first direction along the first threaded leg and the second threaded leg that causes the piercing blade holder compress and when the actuator is torqued in a second direction the actuator is configured to move in a second direction along the first threaded leg and the second threaded leg that causes the piercing blade holder to decompress. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a holder with a piercing blade in a slot, as taught by Ruggiero, in order to provide a cutting connection with the conductor.
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses the reinforcement shim comprising a concave shaped compression surface (see Fig. 1) configured to receive the second cable.
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the specific material of the split bolt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the split bolt from a non-metallic material as the preferred material, in order to ensure a direct connection through the blade/holder, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the reinforcement shim further comprising at least one latch (19).
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses the piercing blade holder including four protrusions to form a dog bone shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Frank, as modified by Ruggiero, discloses the nut configured to be torqued around the first threaded leg and the second threaded leg until the piercing blade pierces a first insulation jacket of the first cable and a second insulation jacket of the second cable to provide an electrical coupling between the first cable and the second cable (intended use).
Regarding claim 9, Frank discloses the head portion including a first side flat surface and a second side flat surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Frank discloses the head portion includes a top side flat surface (Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank, Jr. and Ruggiero, and further in view of Reich (US 2,294,802).
Regarding claim 4, Reich teaches a bolt comprises at least one wing (27) extending from the head portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use at least one wing, as taught by Reich, in order to facilitate manipulation of the bolt.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank, Jr. and Ruggiero, and further in view Koenig (US 2,997,683).
Regarding claim 5, Koenig teaches a nut (28) comprising at least one wing, the at least one wing extending from a flat portion included on the nut. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use at least one wing, as taught by Koenig, in order to facilitate manipulation of the nut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
Please note that the rejection defines the piercing blade holder comprised of several parts (82, 100, 102), some (100, 102) being flexible. The claim language does not require a monolithic piercing blade holder. Nonetheless, please note that Ruggiero also disclose a monolithic piercing blade holder (288/362) made of rubber.
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 571-272-2009. 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. 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