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 Objection
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2 – the – should be inserted after “interrupt”. Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC 103 Rejections
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) 1-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102009060780.
Regarding claim 1, DE '780 substantially discloses the claimed invention, including a connector arrangement, wherein the connector arrangement comprising: a connector housing 20 and a connector insert 16 held by the connector housing, the insert having a two-dimensional insulating material folded at bending locations 17 and electrical conductors 24 arranged on or in the insulating material. It is deemed to have been an obvious matter of design to use the aforesaid structure in a medical device, since “medical device” is extremely broad, and it is well known that all manner of same require connector arrangements to function properly.
Regarding claim 2, DE '780 discloses the bending locations 17 are line-shaped areas.
Regarding claim 3, DE '780 discloses the bending locations 17 are configured extending along
straight lines.
Regarding claim 4, DE '780 discloses the insulating material has at least two line-shaped bending
locations 17 parallel to one another.
Regarding claim 5, DE '780 discloses the connector insert 16 is immovably held in the connector
housing 20.
Regarding claim 6, DE '780 discloses the insulating material 15 is configured as a rigid plate
having multiple areas 16 connected to one another via the bending locations 17.
Regarding claim 7, DE '780 discloses the insulating material 15 is a plastic material, preferably a
plastic composite material.
Regarding claim 8, DE '780 discloses the bending locations 17 are formed by grooves 26 formed in the insulating material.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, to form the grooves 26 as open toward an interior enclosed by the
insulating material is deemed to have been an obvious matter of design not substantially affecting the function thereof.
Regarding claim 10, DE '780 discloses the connector insert 16 encloses an interior at least at
three sides.
Regarding claim 11, DE '780 discloses the connector insert 16 is elastically deformable at the
bending locations 17.
Regarding claim 12, DE '780 discloses the insulating material of the connector insert 16 is
seamlessly monolithically configured.
Regarding claim 13, DE '780 discloses the bending locations 17 are formed by a flexible
conductor support, which mechanically or electrically connects areas 16 of the insulating material with
one another, which are separated from one another at the bending location.
Regarding claim 14, DE '780 discloses the at least one contact body 24 is held on the insulating
material.
Regarding claim 19, DE ‘780 discloses the connector insert further comprising a plurality of contact elements 27 the project into the interior.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102009060780 as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landi et al 4647125.
Landi et al (front page) discloses the insulating material 82,84 comprises at least one through-
hole (unnumbered) and that at least one guide body 92 is arranged on the connector housing 72,74,
which is arranged in a manner passing through the through-hole, and to provide DE '780 with this type
of structure thus would have been obvious, to properly locate the insulating material in the housing.
Claims Defining Over Prior Art
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art discloses or teaches the grooves not interrupting the conducting planes; nor the conducting path traversing at least one of the bending locations on or in the insulating material; in combination with the rest of the subject matter of the respective independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner does not agree that the invention of DE ‘780 could not be used in a medical apparatus, due to the fact that Applcant’s reasoning is based on subject matter not found in the claims.
Finality
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 GARY F PAUMEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2013. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GARY F PAUMEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights