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 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 1, 5-8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 9,466,912).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an electric connector, comprising: a pin (30), comprising: a pin body, the pin body being one piece formed from metal (Fig. 25) and having a guiding portion (at 30F) for guidance and a working portion (36D) for power transmission, the guiding portion having a solid platform (portion in contact with (52D and 56D), an inclined surface (right of 30F in Fig. 26), and an annular stepped structure (at 30F in Fig. 26), the guiding portion forming a front end of the pin body, wherein the annular stepped structure is located between the solid platform and the inclined surface (Fig. 26); and an insulating sleeve (50D) secured on the solid platform at the front end of the pin body, wherein the insulated sleeve is separated from the inclined surface by the annular stepped structure, and wherein a maximum diameter of the insulating sleeve (at 52D) is smaller than a maximum diameter of the guiding portion (right of 30F).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto discloses an outer edge of the insulating sleeve located within an outline of the platform (Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses the insulating sleeve being shifted away from the inclined surface in an axial direction of the pin body (extends away and forward from).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto discloses the insulating sleeve shaped as a truncated cone, the insulating sleeve gradually converges away from the front end of the pin body (Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto discloses an average slope of the inclined surface of the pin body in an axial direction of the pin body is substantially same as the insulating sleeve in the axial direction (Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto discloses the pin body further having a fixing portion (at 34D, Fig. 25) configured to limit a position of the pin, and the fixing portion has a larger diameter than the working portion (Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto discloses the pin body further having a hollow portion (at 30R) extending from the fixing portion (34D), and the hollow portion configured to allow a core wire of a cable to be soldered therein.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Loncar et al. (US 10,205,274).
Regarding claim 9, Loncar teaches a height of the insulating sleeve (3) being smaller than one of a maximum diameter of the platform and a maximum diameter of the working portion (Figs. 1, 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the insulating sleeve being shorter than wider, as taught by Loncar, in order to provide the desired protection without over extending the length of the pin structure.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, to the extent that Loncar does not disclose the exact height to diameter ratios, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the height of the insulating sleeve being smaller than 06. or 0.7 times of a maximum diameter of the insulating sleeve, in order to provide the desire length and accommodate environmental restrictions, and since workable dimensions would have been a matter of routine experimentation. Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,826,240).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches a center of a solid platform having a protrusion that is substantially T-shaped or cylindrically-shaped with an extended flange, and the insulating sleeve is secured on the protrusion (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a protrusion, as taught by Zhang, in order to provide good retention while minimizing the amount of plastic used in the insulting sleeve.
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)727-2009. 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 2831
Prosecution Insights