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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the booster mechanism of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a booster mechanism as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, “the lever assisting connection of the connector body and the mating connector by a booster mechanism.” It is unclear whether the booster mechanism is claimed as a part of the connector body, the lever, the mating connector, or a separate structure entirely. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as a part of the mating connector.
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 2, 1, and 4-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozono (US 2003/0176090 A1) and Zheng (US 2011/0170947 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Kozono (Figures 1 and 4a) teaches a connector to be connected to a mating connector, comprising: a connector body (i.e. 10), a wire (i.e. 60) being pulled out from a rear side in a connection direction; a box-shaped wire cover (i.e. 30) disposed on the rear side in the connection direction of the connector body, one side of the wire cover in a first direction orthogonal to the connection direction being open, the wire pulled out from the connector body being bent toward the one side inside the wire cover and pulled out from the wire cover;
a first lock portion (i.e. 17 and 37) for locking the connector body and the wire cover; and second lock portions (i.e. 17 and 37) for locking the connector body and the wire cover, the second lock portion being provided on each of both sides in a second direction orthogonal to both the connection direction and the first direction, the first lock portion including: a first lock piece (i.e. 37) extending forward in the connection direction from the wire cover, the first lock piece including a cover-side first engaging projection (i.e. 37a) protruding toward the one side; and a first lock receiving portion (i.e. 17) provided in the connector body, the first lock receiving portion including a body-side first engaging projection (i.e. 37a) to be engaged with the cover-side first engaging projection, and a wall (i.e. 12s) for suppressing the cover-side first engaging projection from being disengaged from the body-side first engaging projection.
but does not specifically teach,
the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire,
the first lock receiving portion provided further on the other side than the first lock piece,
the body-side first engaging projection protruding toward the one side, and
the wall being provided further on the one side than the first lock piece.
However, Zheng (Figure 2) teaches a first lock portion (i.e. 70 and 86) and second lock portions (i.e. 69 and 84), the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire (i.e. 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Kozono to have the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire as taught by Zheng so as to secure the wire cover from more than both sides. During this modification, it would have been further obvious to rearrange the parts of the first lock portion of Kozono to the desired orientation.
Therefore, Kozono in view of Zheng teaches,
the first lock receiving portion provided further on the other side than the first lock piece,
the body-side first engaging projection protruding toward the one side, and
the wall being provided further on the one side than the first lock piece.
See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 1: Kozono (Figures 1 and 4a) teaches a connector to be connected to a mating connector, comprising: a connector body (i.e. 10), a wire (i.e. 60) being pulled out from a rear side in a connection direction; a box-shaped wire cover (i.e. 30) disposed on the rear side in the connection direction of the connector body, one side of the wire cover in a first direction orthogonal to the connection direction being open, the wire pulled out from the connector body being bent toward the one side inside the wire cover and pulled out from the wire cover;
a first lock portion (i.e. 17 and 37) for locking the connector body and the wire cover; and second lock portions (i.e. 17 and 37) for locking the connector body and the wire cover, the second lock portion being provided on each of both sides in a second direction orthogonal to both the connection direction and the first direction, the first lock portion including: a first lock piece (i.e. 37) extending forward in the connection direction from the wire cover, the first lock piece including a cover-side first engaging projection (i.e. 37a) protruding toward the one side; and a first lock receiving portion (i.e. 17) provided in the connector body, the first lock receiving portion including a body-side first engaging projection (i.e. 37a) to be engaged with the cover-side first engaging projection, and a wall (i.e. 12s) for suppressing the cover-side first engaging projection from being disengaged from the body-side first engaging projection.
but does not specifically teach,
the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire,
the first lock receiving portion provided further on the one side than the first lock piece,
the body-side first engaging projection protruding toward the other side, and
the wall being provided further on the other side than the first lock piece.
However, Zheng (Figure 2) teaches a first lock portion (i.e. 70 and 86) and second lock portions (i.e. 69 and 84), the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire (i.e. 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Kozono to have the first lock portion being provided further on the other side in the first direction than the wire as taught by Zheng so as to secure the wire cover from more than both sides. During this modification, it would have been further obvious to rearrange the parts of the first lock portion of Kozono to the desired orientation. Therefore, Kozono in view of Zheng teaches,
the first lock receiving portion provided further on the one side than the first lock piece,
the body-side first engaging projection protruding toward the other side, and
the wall being provided further on the other side than the first lock piece.
See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 4: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 1, Kozono (Figure 4a) further teaches wherein: the second lock portion includes: a second lock piece (i.e. 17) extending rearward in the connection direction from the connector body, the second lock piece including a body-side second engaging projection (i.e. 17a); and a second lock receiving portion (i.e. 37) provided on the wire cover, the second lock receiving portion including a cover-side second engaging projection (i.e. 37a) to be engaged with the body-side second engaging projection, and the second lock piece on each of both sides in the second direction, and a plurality of the second lock pieces are disposed point-symmetrically with respect to the center point when viewed from behind in the connection direction.
but does not specifically teach the connector body is provided with the first lock receiving portion on each of both sides in the first direction, a plurality of the first lock receiving portions are disposed point-symmetrically with respect to a center point of the connector body.
However, Zheng teaches the connector body is provided with the first lock receiving portion on each of both sides in the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the connector body taught by Kozono and Zheng to have the first lock receiving portions on each of both sides so as to maintain the symmetric wire cover taught by Zheng.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the first lock portions taught by Kozono and Zheng so as to provide a plurality of the first lock receiving portions are disposed point-symmetric with respect to a center point of the connector body. The point-symmetric arrangement would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art while maintaining the symmetry taught by Zheng’s wire cover.
See, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 5: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 4, Kozono further teaches wherein: the connector body is provided with two second lock pieces on each of the both sides in the second direction and the two second lock pieces provided on the same side in the second direction are provided on the one side and the other side with respect to a center in the first direction of the connector body, the wire cover is provided with the second lock receiving portions at positions corresponding to the second lock pieces on the one side and formed with cuts (i.e. top portion of 37h) for allowing the body-side second engaging projections to escape at positions corresponding to the second lock pieces on the other side, and a corner part (i.e. 37c) on the one side, out of corner parts on a front side in the connection direction of the cut, is chamfered to form a slope.
Regarding claim 6: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 5, Kozono further teaches wherein: the second lock receiving portion includes a groove (i.e. 37f) formed in an inner surface of the wire cover and extending in the connection direction, the body-side second engaging projection being inserted into the groove from front in the connection direction, the cover-side second engaging projection is provided in the groove, and a corner (i.e. 32e) on a front side in the connection direction and an inner side of the groove is chamfered to form a slope.
Regarding claim 7: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 1, Kozono further teaches wherein: the second lock portion includes: a second lock piece (i.e. 37) extending forward in the connection direction from the wire cover, the second lock piece including a cover-side second engaging projection (i.e. 37a); and a second lock receiving portion (i.e. 17) provided on the connector body, the second lock receiving portion including a body-side second engaging projection (i.e. 17a) to be engaged with the cover-side second engaging projection, and the second lock receiving portion on each of both sides in the second direction, a plurality of the second lock receiving portions are disposed point-symmetrically with respect to the center point when viewed from behind in the connection direction.
but does not specifically teach the connector body is provided with the first lock receiving portion on each of both sides in the first direction a plurality of the first lock receiving portions are disposed point-symmetrically with respect to a center point of the connector body.
However, Zheng teaches the connector body is provided with the first lock receiving portion on each of both sides in the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the connector taught by Kozono and Zheng to have a first lock receiving portion on both sides as taught by Zheng so as to maintain the symmetric nature of Zheng’s wire cover.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the first lock portions taught by Kozono and Zheng so as to provide a plurality of the first lock receiving portions are disposed point-symmetric with respect to a center point of the connector body. The point-symmetric arrangement would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art while providing additional locking means and maintaining the symmetry taught by Zheng’s wire cover.
See, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 8: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 7, Kozono further teaches wherein: the wire cover is provided with two second lock pieces on each of both sides in the second direction and the two second lock pieces provided on the same side in the second direction are provided on the one side and the other side with respect to a center in the first direction of the connector body, the connector body is provided with the second lock receiving portions at positions corresponding to the second lock pieces on the one side and formed with cuts (i.e. 14j) for allowing the cover-side second engaging projections to escape at positions corresponding to the second lock pieces on the other side, and a corner part (i.e. 17c) on the one side, out of corner parts on a rear side in the connection direction of the cut is chamfered to form a slope.
Regarding claim 9: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 8, wherein: the second lock receiving portion includes a groove (i.e. 12h) formed in an inner surface of the connector body and extending in the connection direction, the cover-side second engaging projection being inserted into the groove from behind in the connection direction, the body-side second engaging projection is provided in the groove, and a corner (i.e. 12j) on a rear side in the connection direction and an inner side of the groove is chamfered to form a slope.
Regarding claim 10: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 1, wherein a backlash eliminating rib (i.e. 36f) is formed on at least one of an end surface of the wire cover facing forward in the connection direction and a surface of the connector body facing the end surface.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozono, Zheng, and Kawashima (US 2016/0141798 A1).
Regarding claim 3: Kozono and Zheng teach the connector of claim 1, Kozono further teaches comprising: a lever (i.e. 40) assembled with the connector body rotatably from an initial connection position to a connection completion position, the lever assisting connection of the connector body and the mating connector by a booster mechanism;
but Kozono and Zheng do not further describe a temporary locking portion for temporarily locking the lever at a temporary locking position between the initial connection position and the connection completion position, wherein, when the lever is temporarily locked at the temporary locking position, at least a part of a position where the first lock piece is to be inserted in the connector body is not seen by being hidden behind the lever when viewed from behind in the connection direction.
However, Kawashima (Figure 13) teaches a temporary locking portion (i.e. 135 and 113) for temporarily locking the lever (i.e. 130) at a temporary locking position between the initial connection position and the connection completion position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector taught by Kozono and Zheng to have a temporary locking portion as taught by Kawashima so as to provide the connector in a pre-locked but assembled state.
Per the combination, Kozono, Zheng, and Kawashima teach, wherein, when the lever is temporarily locked at the temporary locking position, at least a part of a position where the first lock piece is to be inserted in the connector body is not seen by being hidden behind the lever when viewed from behind in the connection direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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.
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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights