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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/26/2026. These drawings are approved.
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) 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony (US 5,588,853) in view of Itoh et al (US 5,324,207).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Anthony discloses a built-in plug-in connector 10 for entering into a plug-in connection with a cable plug-in connector (not shown, see column 3, lines 36-38) which is matched to the built-in plug-in connector 10 as counterpart and is pluggable into an opening (not labeled, see Fig. 1 an opening form on an end of a shroud 34) of the built-in plug-in connector 10, a signal transmission being enabled by way of entering of the plug-in connection between the built-in plug-in connector 10 and the cable plug-in connector, the built-in plug-in connector 10 comprising: at least one contact element (not labeled, see Fig. 3) that is adapted to come into contact with a cable plug-in connector-side contact element counterpart (not shown) by way of entering into the plug-in connection and, as a result, to provide the signal transmission over the plug-in connection, a contact element carrier 14 in which the at least one contact element is received to fix the at least one contact element within the built-in plug-in connector 10, and (claims 1 and 15) a housing pot 12, the contact element carrier 14 being inserted at least partially into the housing pot 12.
However, Anthony does not disclose the housing pot being made from a material with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60 to 100 and the contact element carrier being made from a material with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60 to 100.
On the other hand, making the housing pot from a material with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60 to 100 and making the contact element carrier from a material with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60 to 100 only deal with the use of a preferred material because the functions of the housing pot and the contact element carrier remain same and unchanged. Also, it is common knowledge that different materials have different hardness or the same material can be made to have different hardness.
Itoh discloses a cap attached to a high-tension cable terminal for sealing an opening formed on an automobile engine, the cap 31 comprising a hollow cap body 26, 36 and a seal ring 25, 35 mounted on a cylindrical portion 28, 38 of the cap body 26, 36, wherein both the cap body 26 and the seal ring 25 are made of rubber of the same quality (see column 3, lines 17-21), but the cap body 36 and the seal ring 35 can be made of rubber of the same quality or made from two different materials (see column 3, lines 46-52). However, the materials are selected such that the hardness of the sealing ring 25, 35 is less than that of the cap body 26, 36 (see column 3, lines 18-21 and 52-55). Ito discloses that by choosing the material for the sealing rings 25, 35 having less hardness than the material for the cap body 26, 36, the seal ring 25, 35 is more elastic than the cap body 26, 36, a large permanent compression set would not be induced, and more superior in heat resistance (see column 3, lines 22-28 and 55-60). In conclusion, it is clear Itoh teaches that materials with different hardnesses can be selected for each component having different function and purpose.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing pot and the contact element carrier taught by Anthony such that a material for the housing pot and a material for the contact element carrier would have different hardnesses as taught by Itho because the material for making the housing pot and the contact element carrier are not limited to just one material, but can be made with many different commonly known basic materials such as wood, metal, plastic, and ceramic. Also, it is common knowledge that different materials have different hardness, which does not affect or change the main functions of the housing pot and the contact element carrier.
Regarding the material for the housing pot with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60-100 and the material for the contact element carrier with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60-100, it only deals with choosing material with optimum range or hardness. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claims 2 and 3, Anthony does not disclose the use of specific materials recited in claims 2 and 3.
On the other hand, plastic and thermoplastic recited in claims 2 and 3 are commonly know materials used to make many different items. Therefore, the use of plastic and thermoplastic of claims 2 and 3 only deals with the use of preferred material.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobler (US 12,132,275 B2) in view of Itoh et al (US 5,324,207).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Dobler discloses a built-in plug-in connector (see Fig. 10) for entering into a plug-in connection with a cable plug-in connector (not shown, see column 9, line 7) which is matched to the built-in plug-in connector as counterpart and is pluggable into an opening (not labeled, see Fig. 10 showing an opening formed by a circumferential edge 37) of the built-in plug-in connector, a signal transmission being enabled by way of entering of the plug-in connection between the built-in plug-in connector and the cable plug-in connector, the built-in plug-in connector comprising: at least one contact element 41 that is adapted to come into contact with a cable plug-in connector-side contact element counterpart (not shown) by way of entering into the plug-in connection and, as a result, to provide the signal transmission over the plug-in connection, a contact element carrier 6 in which the at least one contact element 41 is received to fix the at least one contact element 41 within the built-in plug-in connector, and (claims 1 and 15) a housing pot 35, the contact element carrier 6 being inserted at least partially into the housing pot 1.
However, Dobler does not disclose the housing pot 35 being made from a material with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60 to 100 and the contact element carrier 6 being made from a material with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60 to 100.
On the other hand, making the housing pot from a material with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60 to 100 and making the contact element carrier from a material with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60 to 100 only deal with the use of a preferred material because the functions of the housing pot and the contact element carrier remain same and unchanged. Also, it is common knowledge that different materials have different hardness or the same material can be made to have different hardness.
Itoh discloses a cap attached to a high-tension cable terminal for sealing an opening formed on an automobile engine, the cap 31 comprising a hollow cap body 26, 36 and a seal ring 25, 35 mounted on a cylindrical portion 28, 38 of the cap body 26, 36, wherein both the cap body 26 and the seal ring 25 are made of rubber of the same quality (see column 3, lines 17-21), but the cap body 36 and the seal ring 35 can be made of rubber of the same quality or made from two different materials (see column 3, lines 46-52). However, the materials are selected such that the hardness of the sealing ring 25, 35 is less than that of the cap body 26, 36 (see column 3, lines 18-21 and 52-55). Ito discloses that by choosing the material for the sealing rings 25, 35 having less hardness than the material for the cap body 26, 36, the seal ring 25, 35 is more elastic than the cap body 26, 36, a large permanent compression set would not be induced, and more superior in heat resistance (see column 3, lines 22-28 and 55-60). In conclusion, it is clear Itoh teaches that materials with different hardnesses can be selected for each component having different function and purpose.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing pot and the contact element carrier taught by Dobler such that a material for the housing pot and a material for the contact element carrier would have different hardnesses as taught by Itho because the material for making the housing pot and the contact element carrier are not limited to just one material, but can be made with many different commonly known basic materials such as wood, metal, plastic, and ceramic. Also, it is common knowledge that different materials have different hardness, which does not affect or change the main functions of the housing pot and the contact element carrier.
Regarding the material for the housing pot with a Shore A hardness in the range from 60-100 and the material for the contact element carrier with a Shore D hardness in a range from 60-100, it only deals with choosing material with optimum range or hardness. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claims 2 and 3, Dobler does not disclose the use of specific materials recited in claims 2 and 3.
On the other hand, plastic and thermoplastic recited in claims 2 and 3 are commonly known materials used to make many different items. Therefore, the use of plastic and thermoplastic of claims 2 and 3 only deals with the use of preferred material.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Dobler discloses the housing pot 35 including a housing shell (not labeled, see Fig. 11 showing a cylindrical shell pointed by the reference number 35) having a plug-in-side end (not labeled, see Fig. 10), an insertion opening 2 extending within the plug-in-side end, through which insertion opening 2 the contact element carrier 6 is inserted at least partially into the housing pot 35, and a housing bottom (not labeled, see Fig. 11 showing the surface with openings 40), with at least one push-out opening 40 extending within the housing bottom, through which push-out opening the contact element 41 is pushed at least partially out of the housing pot 35.
Regarding claim 5, Dobler discloses the at least one push-out opening 40 at least one of: a) has a geometrical shape (circular shape) which corresponds at least partially to a geometrical shape of a cross-sectional area, running orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal axis through the at least one contact element 41 of the at least one contact element 41 (having circular shapes), b) extends within the housing bottom with an area which is smaller than or equal to said cross-sectional area of the at least one contact element 41, or c) bears with an area which extends into the at least one push-out opening 40 against the at least one contact element 41 which is pushed at least partially through the at least one push-out opening 40 such that a press fit is configured over an entire thickness of the housing bottom between said area and the contact element 41 which is pushed at least partially through the at least one push-out opening 40.
Regarding claim 6, Dobler discloses the contact element carrier 6 including a plug-in opening (not labeled, see Fig. 10) for plugging in the cable plug-in connector, a contact element carrier interior space extends from the plug-in opening 2 as far as an end piece which is spaced apart from the plug-in opening 2, the end piece provides a stop for the plugged-in cable plug-in connector, has at least one contact element receiving opening, and a connecting flange 3 is arranged at the plug-in opening 2.
Regarding claim 7, Dobler discloses the plug-in-side end of the housing pot 35 including a flange-shaped projection 36 that is at least one of a) placed against the connecting flange 3 of the contact element carrier 6 or is placeable against a mounting plate, the flange-shaped projection 36 having an at least largely identical shape and extent to the connecting flange 3 of the contact element carrier 6, such that the flange-shaped projection 36 which is placed against the connecting flange 3 of the contact element carrier 6 terminates at least largely flush with the connecting flange 3 of the contact element carrier 6.
Regarding claim 8, Dobler discloses the built-in plug-in connector further comprising a radially projecting connecting strip 28, a sealing plug 29 fastened to an outer end of the connecting strip 28, the sealing plug 29 having an external diameter which is greater than an internal diameter of the plug-in opening 2 of the contact element carrier 6, such that, when the sealing plug 29 is pushed into the plug-in opening 2, a press fit is configured between the sealing plug 29 and an area which extends into the plug- in opening 2.
However, Dobler does not disclose the radially projecting connecting strip 28 moulded on the flange-shaped projection 36. Instead, the connecting strip 28 made separately from the flange-shaped projection 36.
On the other hand, whether the connecting strip 28 is moulded on the flange-shaped projection 36 as taught by the instant invention or separately made with the flange-shaped projection 36 as taught by Dobler, the function of the connecting strip 28 will not be affected or changed because it only deals with making two separated parts into one single part.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the connecting strip taught by Dobler such that it would be moulded on the flange-shaped projection as taught by the instant invention because it only deals with making two separated parts into one single part, which does not affect or change the function of the connecting strip.
It has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 9, Dobler discloses the flange-shaped projection 36 having a rectangular shape and the radially projecting connecting strip 28 being placed on one side of the flange-shaped projection 36 and not on a corner of the flange-shaped projection.
However, Dobler does not disclose the radially projecting connecting strip is moulded on a corner of the flange-shaped projection, and the radially projecting connecting strip is moulded on a corner of the flange-shaped projection such that an angle in a range from 120 degrees to 140 degrees is configured between a longer side of two sides of the flange-shaped projection which form said corner.
On the other hand, whether the radially projecting connecting strip 28 is moulded on one side of the flange-shaped projection 36 or on a corner of the flange-shaped projection 36, the function of the radially projecting connecting strip 28 will not be affected or changed. Therefore, placing the radially projecting connecting strip 28 on the corner of the flange-shaped projection 36 only deals with rearrangement of parts.
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 14, Dobler discloses at least one of a) three of the contact elements 41 are received by the contact element carrier 6, or b) three of the push-out openings 40 extend within the housing bottom.
Regarding claim 16, Dobler discloses at least one of: the area which extends into the at least one push-out opening 40 is not opened out by way of the pushed-out at least one contact element 41, or the press fit is configured being impermeable for water and/or air (see column 13, lines 47-54).
However, Dobler does not disclose the housing bottom having a thickness in the range from 0.5 mm to 3 mm.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that a housing of an electrical connector can be made many different shapes and sizes. Therefore, the housing bottom having a thickness in the range from 0.5 mm to 3 mm only deals with changing the size of the thickness of the housing bottom.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing bottom taught by Dobler such that it would have a thickness in the range from 0.5 mm to 3 mm as taught by the instant invention because it only deals with changing the size of the thickness of the housing bottom, which does not affect or change the function of the housing bottom.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 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
It is unnecessary, however, that inventions of references be physically combinable to render obvious an applicant’s invention. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference but what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights