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’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino et al. [US 20110130026 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Makino discloses a connector assembly (Fig 1), comprising: a first connector (10) including a first terminal (female terminals inserted into cavities 13, see [0031]); a second connector (40) adapted to engage with the first connector (10), including: a second terminal (tabs 50 of male terminals) adapted to be connected to the first terminal (female terminals, see [0030-0031]) a first guide protrusion (46) protruding from a side surface of the second connector (40); a locking lever (60) rotatably connected to the first connector (10) and adapted to engage with the second connector (40) for preventing the second connector (40) from disengaging from the first connector (100), the first guide protrusion (46) adapted to disconnect the locking lever (60) from the first connector (10) and bias the locking lever (60) in an opening direction to an open position [0032] (see Fig 1-3).
Regarding Claim 2, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Makino further discloses the locking lever (60) comprises: a locking lever body (60) rotatable around an axis of the first connector (10); and an engagement protrusion (75) extending from an inner side surface of the locking lever body (60) and adapted to engage with the second connector (40 via portions 44) when the first connector (10) is connected to the second connector (40).
Regarding Claim 3, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 2, Makino further discloses the locking lever (60) further comprises a locking lever arm (64) extending from the locking lever body (60) and adapted to engage with the first connector (10 via portion 17) and be released from the first connector (10) via a force from the first guide protrusion (46) while the second connector (40) is connected to the first connector (10) (see[ 0034], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 3, Makino further the second connector (40) further comprises a sub-engagement protrusion (44) extending from an upper side surface of the second connector (40) and engaging with the engagement protrusion (75).
Regarding Claim 9, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Makino further discloses the second connector (40) further comprises a second guide protrusion (45) extending from a side surface thereof and spaced apart from the first guide protrusion (46), the second guide protrusion (45) adapted to rotate the locking lever (60) in an engagement direction (X, figure 2) while the second connector (40) connects to the first connector (10).
Regarding Claim 10, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 9, Makino further discloses the first guide protrusion (46) and the second guide protrusion (45) slidably engage with the locking lever (60).
Regarding Claim 13, As best understood, Makino discloses a connector assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: a first connector (10); a locking lever (60) rotatably attached to the first connector (10); and a second connector (40) engageable with the first connector (10) and defining a first guide protrusion (46) extending from a surface thereof, in a closed position the locking lever (60) engaging with the second connector (40) and preventing the second connector (40) from disengaging from the first connector (10), the first guide protrusion (46) disconnecting the locking lever (60) from the first connector (10) and biasing the locking lever (40) in an opening direction toward an open position (see [0034], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 14, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 13, Makino further discloses the locking lever (60) includes a locking lever arm (64) engaging with the first connector (10 via portion 17) and being released from the first connector (10) via a force from the first guide protrusion (46) as the second connector (40) is connected to the first connector (10, [0034]).
Regarding Claim 19, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Makino further discloses the second connector (40) further defines a second guide protrusion (45) spaced apart from the first guide protrusion (46), the second guide protrusion (45) rotating the locking lever (60) in an engagement direction (X, Fig 2) as the second connector (40) is connected to the first connector (10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-18, and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 3, Makino further discloses the locking lever arm (64) is biased by the first guide protrusion (46) to disengage the lever from portions (17). Makino and the prior art do not explicitly disclose the lever arm is biased by the first guide protrusion an outward direction away from the first connector and is disconnected from the first connector, along with all other limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 6, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 3, Makino does not explicitly disclose the first connector further includes a first guide rail accommodating the first guide protrusion, along with all other limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Claims 7-8 are objected to as they are dependent on claim 6.
Regarding Claim 11, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Makino further discloses a second guide (65, 66,67) accommodating the second guide protrusion. Makino does not explicitly disclose a first guide accommodating the first guide protrusion and spaced apart from the second guide, along with all other limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Claim 12 is objected to as it is dependent on claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 14, Makino further discloses the locking lever arm (64) is biased by the first guide protrusion (46) to disengage the lever from portions (17). Makino does not explicitly disclose the lever arm is biased by the first guide protrusion an outward direction away from the first connector and is disconnected from the first connector, along with all other limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Claims 16-18 are objected to as they are dependent on claim 15.
Regarding Claim 20, Makino discloses all the limitations of claim 19, Makino further discloses a second guide (65, 66,67) accommodating the second guide protrusion. Makino does not explicitly disclose a first guide accommodating the first guide protrusion and spaced apart from the second guide, along with all other limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
Conclusion
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