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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely quoted paragraphs from MPEP without pointing out specific disagreements regarding the references used in the prior office action. In light of the amendments filed 01/08/2026 new rejections are put forth below in view of Yamane et al. [US 20170133790 A1].
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.
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, 16-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagi [US 20210013674 A1] in view of Yamane et al. [US 20170133790 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Akagi discloses a housing assembly (see Fig 1) for an electrical connector, comprising: a housing body (20) including a groove (25) formed in an outer side surface thereof; and a locking lever (30) pivotally connected to the housing body (20) and pivotable relative to the housing body (20) between a pre-locked position and a locked position (see [0032]), the locking lever (30) including an elastic protrusion (36) formed on an inner side surface thereof, the groove (25) and the elastic protrusion (36) are adapted such that the elastic protrusion (36) is engaged into the groove (25) when the locking lever (30) is in the pre-locked position (see Fig 9), and the elastic protrusion (36) is disengaged from the groove (25) when the locking lever (30) is moved from the pre-locked position (see [0032]). Akagi does not explicitly disclose an error-proofing stopper preventing the locking lever from being pivoted from the pre-locked position in a direction opposite to the locked position.
However, Yamane discloses an error-proofing stopper (85, Fig 26-28) preventing a locking lever (80) from being pivoted from the pre-locked position (Fig 28) in a direction opposite to the locked position (Fig 20) (stoppers 85 abut against portions 18 of the second housing preventing further movement in the opposite direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akagi as suggested by Yamane to provide an error-proofing stopper preventing the locking lever from being pivoted from the pre-locked position in a direction opposite to the locked position. Doing so would provide a mechanism stop the lever from rotating incorrectly/unintentionally and causing damage to the lever/connector.
Regarding Claim 2, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Akagi further discloses a sliding groove formed (27) in the outer side surface of the housing body (20) and located adjacent to the groove (25), the sliding groove (27) adapted such that as the locking lever (30) is pivoted from the pre-locked position to the locked position, the elastic protrusion (36) disengaged from the groove (25) enters into and is moved along the sliding groove (27) (see [0032]).
Regarding Claim 3, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 2, Akagi further discloses the elastic protrusion (36) further comprises: an elastic sheet (36) extending from the inner side surface of the locking lever (30); and a boss (36a, see Fig 4A) protruding from the elastic sheet (36).
Regarding Claim 4, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi does not explicitly disclose two opposite ends of the elastic sheet extend from the inner side surface of the locking lever.
However, Yamane discloses two opposite ends of the elastic sheet extend from the inner side surface of the locking lever (see annotated Figure 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akagi as suggested by Yamane to provide two opposite ends of the elastic sheet extend from the inner side surface of the locking lever. Doing so would have been routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as both references disclose protrusions that are capable of locking functions.
Regarding Claim 5, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 4, Yamane further discloses two sides of the elastic sheet adjacent to the two opposite ends are separated from the inner side surface of the locking lever (80); and the boss is arranged in a middle portion of the elastic sheet between the two opposite ends of the elastic sheet in a direction of extension of the elastic sheet between the two opposite ends (see annotated Figure 11 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi further discloses the boss (36a) defined by a bend formed in the elastic sheet (36) (see Fig 4A). Yamane further discloses the boss defined by a bend formed in the elastic sheet (see annotated Figure 11)
Regarding Claim 7, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi further discloses the elastic protrusion (36) is integrally formed with the inner side surface of the locking lever (12) (see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi does not explicitly disclose a wall surface of the groove near the sliding groove is formed with a chamfer.
However, a chamfer is well known in the art to be used in structures to guide or provide a smooth transition for protrusions engaging with a groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akagi to provide a wall surface of the groove near the sliding groove is formed with a chamfer. Doing so would provide a smooth transition from the two grooves lowering the risk of breaking the elastic protrusion.
Regarding Claim 9, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi further discloses the boss (36a) defines an inclined face (see Fig 4A).
Regarding Claim 10, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 3, Akagi does not explicitly disclose a wall surface of the sliding groove proximate the groove is formed with a chamfer.
However, a chamfer is well known in the art to be used in structures to guide or provide a smooth transition for protrusions engaging with a groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akagi to provide a wall surface of the sliding groove proximate the groove is formed with a chamfer. Doing so would provide a smooth transition from the two grooves lowering the risk of breaking the elastic protrusion.
Regarding Claim 11, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 2, Akagi further discloses the locking lever (30) further comprises: a pair of arm portions (32); and a connecting portion (31) connected to the pair of arm portions (32).
Regarding Claim 12, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 11, Akagi further discloses the pair of arm portions (32) are pivotally connected to the opposite outer side surfaces of the housing body (20).
Regarding Claim 13, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 12, Akagi further discloses the elastic protrusion (36) is formed on an inner side surface of each arm portion (32) of the pair of arm portions (32).
Regarding Claim 14, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 13, Akagi further discloses the groove (25) and the sliding groove (27) are correspondingly formed in each outer side surface of the opposite outer side surfaces of the housing body (20).
Regarding Claim 16, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Yamane further discloses the error-proofing stopper (85) extends from each arm portion (see annotated Figure 11) of the pair of arm portions towards the outer side surface of the housing body (10, 40, see Figures 26-28).
Regarding Claim 17, Akagi and Yamane disclose all the limitations of claim 1, Akagi further discloses the housing assembly (Fig 1) is an outer housing (20) of an electrical connector (10). The limitation limiting the housing assembly being adapted to electrically connect to a battery of a vehicle as an intended use of the invention disclosed by Akagi.
Regarding Claim 22, Akagi discloses all the limitations of claim 21, Akagi does not explicitly disclose the locking lever further comprises an error-proofing stopper preventing the locking lever from being pivoted from the pre-locked position in a direction opposite to the locked position.
However, Yamane discloses an error-proofing stopper (85, Fig 26-28) preventing a locking lever (80) from being pivoted from the pre-locked position (Fig 28) in a direction opposite to the locked position (Fig 20) (stoppers 85 abut against portions 18 of the second housing preventing further movement in the opposite direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akagi as suggested by Yamane to provide an error-proofing stopper preventing the locking lever from being pivoted from the pre-locked position in a direction opposite to the locked position. Doing so would provide a mechanism stop the lever from rotating incorrectly/unintentionally and causing damage to the lever/connector.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagi [US 20210013674 A1].
Regarding Claim 18, Akagi discloses an electrical connector housing (20, see Fig 1), comprising: a housing (20), including: at least one groove (25) formed in a first outer side surface of the housing (20) and adapted to receive an elastic protrusion (36) of a locking lever (30) pivotally mounted to the housing (20) with the locking lever (30) in a pre-locked position (Fig 11); and at least one sliding groove (27) formed in the first outer side surface of the housing (20) and positioned adjacent to the at least one groove (25), the first sliding groove (27) extending in a direction of extension between a first end and a second end opposite the first end, and adapted to slidably receive the elastic protrusion (36) of the locking lever (30) as the locking lever (30) is moved from the pre-locked position [0032]. Akagi does not explicitly disclose the at least one groove is located directly adjacent to the first end of the at least one sliding groove in the direction of extension of the at least one sliding groove.
However, the placement of the grooves directly adject to one another in the direction of extension of the sliding groove would have been an obvious routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the configuration of the movement of the lever. It would’ve been obvious to align the two grooves in a manner in which the elastic protrusion would engage both grooves.
Regarding Claim 19, Akagi discloses all the limitations of claim 18, Akagi further discloses the at least one groove (25) includes a first groove (25) formed in the first outer side surface of the housing (20) and a second groove (25) formed in a second outer side surface of the housing (20) oppose the first outer side surface [0025]; and the at least one sliding groove (27) includes a first sliding groove (27) formed in the first outer side surface of the housing (20) and a second sliding groove (27) formed in the second outer side surface of the housing (20) [0032].
Regarding Claim 21, Akagi discloses a housing assembly (see Fig 1) for an electrical connector, comprising: a housing body (20) including a groove (25) formed in an outer side surface thereof, and a sliding groove (27) formed in the outer side surface of the housing body (20), the sliding groove (27) elongated in an arcuate direction of extension between a first end and a second end (see Fig 3), and a locking lever (30) pivotally connected to the housing body (20) and pivotable relative to the housing body (20) between a pre-locked position and a locked position (See [0032]), the locking lever (30) including an elastic protrusion (36) formed on an inner side surface thereof, the groove (25) and the elastic protrusion (36) are adapted such that the elastic protrusion (36) is engaged into the groove (25) when the locking lever (30) is in the pre-locked position (See Fig 9), and the elastic protrusion (36) is disengaged from the groove (25) when the locking lever (30) is moved from the pre-locked position (see [0032]), the sliding groove (27) adapted such that as the locking lever (20) is pivoted from the pre-locked position to the locked position, the elastic protrusion (36) disengaged from the groove (25) enters into and is moved along the arcuate direction of the sliding groove (27). Akagi does not explicitly disclose the sliding groove located adjacent to the groove in the direction of extension of the sliding groove.
However, the placement of the grooves adject to one another in the direction of extension of the sliding groove would have been an obvious routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the configuration of the movement of the lever. It would’ve been obvious to align the two grooves in a manner in which the elastic protrusion would engage both grooves.
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 THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834