DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/26 has been entered.
IMPROPER MARKUSH GROUPING
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected on the basis that these claims contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush groupings of claims 1 and 3-19 are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The alternatives are have no structural similarities and have different functions.
Regarding claim 1, the alternative inventions of “a combined connector plug” . . . comprising: “a first connector plug portion . . . or “at least one data terminal” or “at least one auxiliary terminal” . . . lack a “single structural similarity” and a common use.
Regarding claim 7, the alternative inventions of “a combined connector socket . . . comprising “first connector socket portion . . . or “at least one data terminal” or “at least one auxiliary terminal” . . . lack a “single structural similarity” and a common use.
Regarding claim 11, the alternative inventions of “a connector cable” . . . “each combined connector plug comprises: a first connector plug portion” or “at least one data terminal” or “at least one auxiliary terminal” lack a “single structural similarity” and a common use.
Regarding claim 13, alternative inventions of the system including a of “a combined connector plug” . . . comprising: “a first connector plug portion . . . or “at least one data terminal” or “at least one auxiliary terminal” . . . lack a “single structural similarity” and a common use.
The Markush groupings of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The alternatives are have no structural similarities and have different functions.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, each of the claimed alternative inventions defined by the improper Markush groupings define a patentably distinct species.
The species are independent or distinct because the are different structures with different functions. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The various claimed inventions require different keyword searches and define different structure which are located in various different classifications.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
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 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, and 13, it is unclear what defines the alternative inventions defined by the “and/or” clauses. It is unclear that defines the at least three different inventions being set apart by the two “and/or” clauses.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15, the scope of the invention is indefinite because of the multiple combinations of multiple improper Markush groupings. The scope of the invention is indefinite and the limitations are given little weight.
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, 3-10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. US 10381778 (“Ishida”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a combined connector plug 2 (plug 2 is a male connector, col. 4, lines 45-55) for a connection between (i.e., capable of making a connection between) a towing vehicle and a trailer, comprising: . . . “at least one data terminal.”
Note that the remainder of the limitations of the claim define alternate inventions.
Per claim 7, Ishida discloses a combined connector socket (3, socket 3 is a female connector, col. 4, lines 45-55) for a connection between (i.e., capable of making a connection between) a towing vehicle and a trailer, comprising: . . . “at least one data terminal.”
Note that the remainder of the limitations of the claim define alternate inventions.
Per claim 13, Ishida discloses a combined plug-socket connector system for connecting (i.e., capable of connecting) a towing vehicle with a trailer, the combined plug-socket connector system comprising: . . . “at least one data terminal.”
Note that the remainder of the limitations of the claim define alternate inventions.
Regarding claims 3-6, 15, 16, 8-10, 17, 14, and 19 as best understood by the examiner, these claims define further alternate inventions which are not necessarily part of the claimed invention of the their respective parent claim.
Claims 11, 12 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leigh et al. US 10741963 (“Leigh”)
Regarding claims 11, Leigh discloses a connector cable, comprising:
a cable (plural cables 104 secured by elements 110 are considered to be a “cable”) with a plurality of lines and/or wires;
a combined connector plug (plural conjoined connectors 106 form a combined connector plug) arranged at each end of the cable to enable a connection between a towing vehicle and a trailer, wherein each combined connector plug comprises: . . . “at least one data terminal.”
Note that the remainder of the limitations of the claim are alternate inventions.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, as best understood by the examiner, these claims further define alternate inventions which are not necessarily part of the claimed invention of the their respective parent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Regarding the prior art, applicant’s arguments apply to an alternate invention which is not necessarily part of the claimed invention. As set out above, the claims include improper Markush groupings which define different inventions. The arguments made by applicant may apply to one alternate invention, but do not apply to all the claimed inventions defined by the improper Markush groupings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS N GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler, can be reached at (571)272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights