DETAILED ACTION
,7Notice 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 § 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.
Claims 16-20 are 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 16 is unclear in that on line 5, it calls for a track without reciting a feature to support such track. T correct this line 4 could be charged to --...a track in a terminal support unit—and on line 6 to refer to—said track--.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a, 1) as being anticipated by Kraemer.
For claim 1, Kraemer, figure 1 is applied with terminal support 20 and modules at lines 36, 84, 84 read as part of the terminal support, the remaining module at line 78 read as a terminal module. The terminal support so formed includes an array of terminal aperture and a track at 82 now part of the terminal supports a terminal lock 88 is to be inserted into the track and is to lock terminals in apertures in the terminal support and is to the terminal module at line 78 in position in the terminal support. Claim 2 reads on position of the module 78 in unit 20. For claim, Kraemer, figure 1 uses a second terminal support 4 for mating with the first one. For claim 11, Kraemer applied as for claim 1, claim 11 define basic steps of forming such device.
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 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer.
For claim 3, Kraemer lacks a primary lock to secure the terminal module. Use of resilient latches to secure a module is standard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kraemer to provide such feature in Kraemer to enable securement of the module. For claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kraemer to form such feature in Kraemer so as to form the terminal lock to cam the module forward into the track.
For claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kraemer to form such feature in Kraemer so as to locate module 36, 80, 84 in support 20 with such arrangement and the module at 78 located in support 24, the device meets claim 6. For claim 8, Kraemer does not. For claim 9, the Kraemer figure 1 mating connector 4 lacks teaching of terminal support, module and terminal lock. Kraemer uses such features for connector. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kraemer to use such feature for connector 4. This enables easy replacement of module. For claim 12, Kraemer applied as for claim 3. Claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kraemer as stated for claim 6.
Claims 4, 7, 10, 13, 14 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL ABRAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2089. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, from 8-5pm.
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, TC 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.
/NEIL ABRAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights