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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of the “molded body formed from a thermoplastic material that is dimensionally stable and temperature resistant” as now cited in claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siden (4196308) in view of Condon (3774141).
Siden discloses a wire splice assembly comprising a wire splice including a wire splice terminal and a wire splice housing (Fig. 3) holding the wire splice terminal, the terminal including a wire tube (12) extending between a first end configured to receive an end of a first wire (26) and a second end configured to receive an end of a second wire (27, col. 3 line 33), the wire tube having a first crush barrel at the first end configured to crimp to the first wire, the wire tube having a second crush barrel at the second end configured to crimp to the second wire (Fig. 2), the wire splice housing including a body forming a cavity receiving the splice terminal, the wire splice housing including a first funnel (34) part of the body at a first end configured to guide the first wire to the first end of the terminal, the wire splice housing including a second funnel (34) part of the body at a second end configured to guide the second wire to the second end of the terminal (re-claim 1).
Siden does not disclose the body being formed from a thermoplastic material that is dimensionally stable and temperature resistant; and a carrier strip being integral with the wire splice housing, the carrier strip extending from the housing for connecting the housing to other wire splices, wherein the housing is configured to be singulated from the carrier strip afterward (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Siden, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a thermoplastic material, such as PTFE or polyamide-imide, which is dimensionally stable and heat resistant for the housing body of Siden to meet the specific use of the resulting assembly since thermoplastic materials are known in the art for being used as housing materials and since Siden suggests that any suitable insulating polymers can be used for the housing body (col. 4 lines 38-39).
Condon discloses a wire splice assembly comprising a carrier strip integral with a plurality of wire splice housings (38), wherein the housing is configured to be singulated from the carrier strip afterward. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a carrier strip integral with the housing of Siden and connecting the housing with other wire splices as taught by Condon for mass termination.
It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, molded or co-molded, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Siden, as modified, discloses the carrier strip and the housings being a unitary monolithic structure (re-claim 2); the carrier strip being located between the first and second ends of the housing (re-claim 3); the carrier strip being approximately centered along the housing between the first and second ends (re-claim 4); and the carrier strip being located at a bottom of the housing (Fig. 2, the lower strip) (re-claim 5).
Re-claim 6, the modified housings of Siden can be configured to be wound on a reel with the carrier strips since they comprise structure and material as claimed.
Re-claim 7, Condon teaches the terminal (64) including a terminal lead-in at a first end (68) forming a terminal funnel. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the terminal of Siden to comprise a terminal funnel, as taught by Condon, at the first end to ease the insertion of the wire into the terminal. It is noted that since the first end of the terminal is a terminal funnel end, it can be configured to guide the first wire into the first crush barrel.
Re-claim 8, Siden discloses the wire splice housing including a locating lip (22), the second end of the terminal engaging the locating lip to locate the terminal in the cavity.
Re-claim 9, Siden, as modified, discloses the first funnel has a first funnel diameter, the second funnel has a second funnel diameter, and the cavity has a cavity diameter less than the first and second funnel diameters, the second end of the wire terminal having a diameter less than the cavity diameter to load the wire tube of the wire splice terminal into the cavity, the first end of the wire tube being flared outward (see Condon, end 68) forming a large diameter greater than the cavity diameter which would restrict the first end from entering the cavity.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siden in view of Condon and Bahder (4487994).
Siden and Condon disclose the invention substantially as claimed, see the rejection above with respect to claim 1.
Siden and Condon do not disclose the assembly further comprising a first heat shrink sleeve couped to the first end of the housing and a second heat shrink sleeve coupled to the second end of the housing (re-claims 10 and 11).
Bahder discloses a wire splice assembly comprising a first heat shrink sleeve (122) couped to a first end of housing (120) and a second heat shrink sleeve (122) coupled to a second end of the housing (120).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide first and second heat shrink sleeves as taught by Bahder in the assembly of Siden to further protect the splice from the surrounding environment. It is noted that since the first and second heat shrink sleeves in the modified system of Siden comprise structure and material as claimed, they can be configured to be heat shrink applied to the first wire and second wire respectively.
It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, molded or co-molded, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Re-claim 12, Siden, as modified, discloses the first heat shrink sleeve including a first housing attachment end attached to the wire splice housing and a first wire attachment end extending beyond the first end of the wire splice housing configured to be attached to the first wire, the second heat shrink sleeve including a second housing attachment end attached to the wire splice housing and a second wire attachment end extending beyond the second end of the wire splice housing configured to be attached to the second wire.
Re-claim 13, Siden, as modified, discloses the first heat shrink sleeve being separate, discrete, and spaced apart from the second heat shrink sleeve (see Bahder).
Re-claim 14, Siden, as modified, discloses the carrier strip (the upper strip in Fig. 2 of Condon) being located between the first and second heat shrink sleeves.
Re-claim 15, Siden, as modified, discloses the first heat shrink sleeve being coupled to the first funnel remote from the portion of the wire splice housing holding the first crush barrel, and the second heat shrink sleeve being coupled to the second funnel remote from the portion of the wire splice housing holding the second crush barrel (see Bahder).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Applicant argues that under In re Thorpe, the product-by-process language may be disregarded only when the claimed product is shown to be structurally identical to or obvious over the prior art product. the Office Action (OA) does not identify, nor do the cited references disclose, a wire splice housing having a carrier strip integrally formed with the housing that is later singulated. Examiner would disagree because Condon does teach housings 38 being integrally with a carrier strip (Fig. 2), and the housings can be configured to be later singulated.
Applicant states that “co-molded” and “integral” together define a carrier strip that is not merely attached, but formed as part of the same molded body as the wire splice housing, which directly impacts structural integrity, alignment, and singulation behavior. In response to such arguments, examiner would like to direct the applicant to Figure 2 of Condon, wherein it shows that the housings 38 and the carrier strip are integrally formed as one-part component, not being attached.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights