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
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mase et al. (WO2024085109A1).
With regard to claim 1, Mase teaches, as shown in figures 3-20: “A connector 10 comprising: a housing 20 configured to be fitted to a counterpart housing 61 and having a terminal accommodating chamber 21 configured to accommodate a terminal; and a fitting detection member 50 slidably attached to the housing 20 and configured to detect fitting between the housing 20 and the counterpart housing 61, wherein the fitting detection member 50 includes a locking protrusion 52A to be locked to a locked protrusion 27 of the housing 20, wherein, when the locking protrusion 52A is locked to the locked protrusion 27, the locked protrusion 27 of the housing 20 prevents the locking protrusion 52A of the fitting detection member 50 from moving in a rear direction (upward in figure 18), wherein in the housing 20, a space (where 50 is positioned in figure 18) configured to allow the locking protrusion 52A to pass in a sliding direction (up-and-down direction in figure 18) of the fitting detection member 50 is defined between an outer peripheral surface of the housing 20 and the locked protrusion 27, and wherein the locking protrusion 52A passes through the space from a rear end (top end in figure 18) toward a front end (bottom end in figure 18) in the sliding direction and is locked to the locked protrusion 27”.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (WO2024085109A1) in view of Mamiya et al. (2020/0153145).
With regard to claim 2, Mase teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Mase also teaches, as shown in figures 3-20: “wherein, in a non-deformed state, at an upper end surface of the locking protrusion 52A, an inclined surface 52B formed in an upward inclined shape from the front end toward the rear end, and a flat surface (surface opposite 52B in figure 20) located on a rear end side of the inclined surface 52b… and wherein the upper end surface (left end of 52A in figure 15) of the locking protrusion 52A is configured to slide against the lower end surface (right end of surface of 27 in figure 15) of the locked protrusion 27 in the sliding direction”.
Mase does not teach: “and formed to extend in the sliding direction are continuously provided, wherein at a lower end surface of the locked protrusion, an inclined surface formed in an upward inclined shape from the front end toward the rear end, and a flat surface located on a front end side of the inclined surface of the locked protrusion and formed to be substantially parallel to the outer peripheral surface are continuously provided, and wherein the upper end surface of the locking protrusion is configured to slide against the lower end surface of the locked protrusion in the sliding direction”.
Mamiya also teaches, as shown in figures 1-8, the flat surface (portion of 54 abutted against 34 in figure 7) “and formed to extend in the sliding direction (right-to-left in figure 5) are continuously provided, wherein at a lower end surface of the locked protrusion 34, an inclined surface 37 formed in an upward inclined shape from the front end toward the rear end, and a flat surface (bottom surface of 34 in figure 6) located on a front end side of the inclined surface of the locked protrusion 34 and formed to be substantially parallel to the outer peripheral surface are continuously provided”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mamiya with the invention of Mase in order to smoothly displace the locked protrusion along the sliding direction (Mamiya, paragraph 53).
With regard to claim 3, Mase teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Mase does not teach: “wherein the housing includes an elastically deformable locking mechanism provided with the locked protrusion and to which the counterpart housing is locked in a state where the housing and the counterpart housing are fitted to each other, wherein the fitting detection member includes an elastically deformable arm piece provided with a locking claw configured to lock to the locking mechanism, wherein before the housing and the counterpart housing are fitted to each other, the locking claw is in contact with the locking mechanism at a temporary locking position where the locking protrusion is locked to the locked protrusion such that the fitting detection member is restricted from replacing from the temporary locking position, and wherein, when the housing and the counterpart housing are fitted to each other, the arm piece is elastically deformed to release a contact state between the locking claw and the locking mechanism such that the fitting detection member displaces from the temporary locking position to a final locking position where the locking claw is locked to the locking mechanism”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Mamiya teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the housing 10 includes an elastically deformable locking mechanism 32 provided with the locked protrusion 34 and to which the counterpart housing 60 is locked in a state where the housing 10 and the counterpart housing 60 are fitted to each other, wherein the fitting detection member 45 includes an elastically deformable arm piece 50 provided with a locking claw 51 configured to lock to the locking mechanism 32, wherein before the housing 10 and the counterpart housing 60 are fitted to each other, the locking claw 54 is in contact with the locking mechanism 32 at a temporary locking position (shown in figure 5) where the locking protrusion 54 is locked to the locked protrusion 34 such that the fitting detection member 45 is restricted from replacing from the temporary locking position, and wherein, when the housing 10 and the counterpart housing 60 are fitted to each other, the arm piece 50 is elastically deformed to release a contact state between the locking claw 51 and the locking mechanism 34 such that the fitting detection member 45 displaces from the temporary locking position to a final locking position (shown in figure 7) where the locking claw 51 is locked to the locking mechanism 32”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mamiya with the invention of Mase in order to be able to easily connect and disconnect the housing and the fitting detection smoothly displace the locked protrusion along the sliding direction (Mamiya, paragraph 53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831