DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. US 2020/0266554 (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses an electrical connector assembly for mechanically and electrically connecting first and second cables each including an elongate electrical conductor covered by an insulation layer, the electrical connector assembly comprising:
an insulation piercing connector 11 comprising:
a pair of clamping jaws (220, 230), at least one of the jaws comprising at least one electrically conductive piercing member (252, 254), and
a male connector member (labeled MCM in annotated figure 10 below, male in the sense that it includes a projection projecting from the surface of the clamping jaw) extending outwardly from one of the clamping jaws;
a clamping mechanism (272, 276) configured and operable to force the at least one piercing member through the insulation layers of the first and second cables and into electrical engagement with the conductors of the first and second cables to form an electrical connection between the first and second cables; and
a protective end cap (labeled “Cap” below) configured to be secured to the male connector member and configured to enclose a terminal end of the first cable.
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3 the male connector member extends outwardly from the one of the clamping jaws in a direction transverse to a lengthwise axis of the first cable.
Per claim 18, Johnson discloses an electrical connector assembly for mechanically and electrically connecting first and second cables each including an elongate electrical conductor covered by an insulation layer, the electrical connector assembly comprising (see claim 1 for identification of claimed elements):
an insulation piercing connector comprising:
a pair of clamping jaws, at least one of the jaws comprising at least one electrically conductive piercing member, and one of the clamping jaws comprising a connector member (labeled MCM above);
a clamping mechanism configured and operable to force the at least one piercing member through the insulation layers of the first and second cables and into electrical engagement with the conductors of the first and second cables to form an electrical connection between the first and second cables; and
a protective end cap (labeled “cap” above) configured to be secured to the connector member and configured to enclose a terminal end of the first cable.
Per claim 19, the connector member is a male connector member (in the sense of projecting from the jaw and the end cap comprises a female connector member shaped to matingly receive the male connector member (see figure 10, the tether end is shaped to matingly receive the male connector member).
Per claim 20, the end cap comprises a male connector member (the portion labeled “tether” above) and wherein the connector is a female connector member (comprising a slot formed between to projections) shaped to matingly receive the male connector member.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Newman US 11121480. Regarding claim 11, Johnson does not disclose an enclosure configured to receive and cover the connection and to protect the insulation piercing connector. Newman discloses connector assembly 200 and enclosure 100 configured to receive and cover the connection and to protect the insulation piercing connector. It would have been obvious to provide an enclosure as taught at Newman 100 for the Johnson connector assembly. The reason would have been to protect the connector assembly from adverse environmental conditions as was known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are allowable. Claims 2, 4-10, and 19, 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.
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.
/ROSS N GUSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights