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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-06-18 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-16 and 18-19 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-06-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as “First through Third” on pages 7-9, that Dais does not teach a conductive connector that is part of a cable assembly. Specifically, applicant argues that Dais does not teach a cylindrical metallic connector that forms part of a cable-side assembly, and it does not receive an exposed part of a cable conductor at which an interface between a channel closing element and the conductor is located. Additionally, Applicant argues that Leopold does not teach a channel closing element, or an insulating body with a channel or that the coupling section is not a cylindrical metallic connector configured to receive an exposed part of a power cable conductor and at or in which an interface between a channel closing element and that conductor is formed. Therefore, the combination of Dais and Leopold does not reach a conductive connector whose hollow interior simultaneously receives an exposed cable conductor and locates an interface between a channel closing element and that conductor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, with respect to the sections labeled “First” and “Second”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner did not rely on Dais to teach an exposed part of a cable conductor is inserted at or in which the interface is located, nor did the examiner rely of Leopold to teach a channel closing element. Instead, the examiner relied on Leopold to teach only that exposed parts of a conductor are inserted into an interface. Dais teaches the interface as claimed (see rejection below) and Leopold teaches inserting exposed parts of conductors into interfaces. Therefore, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold teaches inserted exposed parts of conductors into an interface as claimed.
With respect to the section labeled “Third” the combination Dais in view of Leopold teaches the exposed cable conductor of Leopold (Fig 2: Wires, 12) inserted into an interface of Dais, which includes a channel closing element. Therefore, the combination would contain the exposed cable of Leopold and the channel closing element of Dais. The difference between the claimed invention and Dais is that the conductor of Dais is not explicitly taught as being inserted into the conductive sleeve. However, Leopold teaches this as they teach inserted an exposed conductor into a sleeve. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be well aware that making electrical connections by inserting exposed conductors into sleeves. This way of making connections is exceptionally well known in the art and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill.
Applicant argues as “Fourth” on page 9, that Dais does not teach an insulating channel closing element as the plug contact, 11, of Dais is a part of the conductor, 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the channel closing element of Dais, as indicated in the annotated Figure 1, is at least partially comprised of insulating material (24), and the material physically closes the opening of the channel by mating with the insulating sleeve, 64.
Applicant argues as “Fifth” on page 9, that the combination of Dais in view of Leopold was made with impermissible hindsight (and the subsequent combination in the dependent claims of Waligora and Iadanza as applicable).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The motivation for the combinations made in the prior rejection, and reiterated below are all taught by the applicable references and therefore the examiner did not rely on impermissible hindsight reasoning to make the combinations as the reasons for combining would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date.
Applicant argues, regarding the dependent claims on pages 9-10, that Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora does not teach a plug extending into the channel from a second opening.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the second opening is the opening in which the channel closing element of Dais extends into, for clarification, the second opening would be the opening that is closest to the closing element, the first opening is the opening further away from the channel closing element. See the further annotated Figure 1 immediately below.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-2, 7, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dais (US-20120071014-A1) in view of Leopold (CN-111433981-A – refer to machine translation attached for references cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Dais teaches a first end of a cable (See annotated Figures 1 & 2 of Dais), an insulating body (Figs 1 & 2: insulating sleeve, 64) including a channel centered around and stretching along a longitudinal axis through the insulation body (Can be seen in Figs 1 & 2: axis 'A') and an insulating channel closing element (See annotated Figures 1 & 2 of Dais | Para [0033] teaches an insulation, 24), the channel being accessible via a first opening in the insulation body (See annotated Figures 1 & 2 of Dais),
the first cable end extends into the channel via the first opening (Can be seen in Figs 1 & 2) and a first end of the channel closing element (Figs 1 & 2: plug contact, 11) abuts a first end of a conductor of the first cable end at a mating location in the channel in order to form an interface between the first end of the channel closing element and the first end of the conductor of the first cable end at the mating location (Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel),
an inner rubber deflector in the insulating body covering and provided radially outside of the mating location (Para [0033] teaches a deformable insulation, 67, may be integrated in the insulating sleeve, 64, and may be elastomer based on silicone or EPDM, EPDM being a synthetic rubber), and
a conductive connector (Figs 1 & 2: plug contact, 65) having a hollow interior (Para [0028] teaches the electrical conductor has, as part of the conductor, the plug contact, 65, which is in the form of a sleeve), the conductive connector being a cylindrical metallic connector (Para [0028] describes the plug contact as electrically conductive and in the form of a sleeve).
Dais does not explicitly teach that an exposed part of the conductor is inserted into the hollow interior at or in which said interface is located. However, Leopold teaches that an exposed part of the conductor is inserted into the hollow interior at or in which said interface is located (Fig 2 shows a conductor (sensor wires, 12) inserted into a metal sleeve (coupling section, 20) and abutting against another conductor (conductive cores, 28). Para [0030] teaches the coupling between these two wires is achieved by said coupling section, and that the coupling section may be a metal sleeve). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the metal sleeve of Dais to allow for the insertion of the conductor as in Leopold. A motivation for this modification is to electrically and mechanically connect two ends as taught in Leopold in Para [0030].
Regarding Claim 2, Dais further teaches wherein the first cable end has a first longitudinal axis, the channel closing element has a second longitudinal axis and the first longitudinal axis is aligned with the second longitudinal axis (Can be seen in Figs 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Dais further teaches a grounded electrically conducting enclosure around the insulating body (Figs 1-2: metal housing, 62 | Para [0028] teaches a metal housing, 62, at ground potential).
Regarding Claim 16, Dais further teaches wherein the channel comprises a second opening (See annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), the insulating body is a joint body (Fig 2 shows the joining of the insulating body and the insulating channel closing element), the channel closing element is an insulating plug extending into the channel from the second opening (Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24 and Figs 1 & 2 show it is inserted into the second opening) and the first cable end and the insulating plug together forming an end plug assembly including said interface at which the first end of the insulating plug abuts the first end of the conductor of the first cable end (Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel).
Regarding Claim 18, Dais further teaches a grounded electrically conducting enclosure around the insulating body (Figs 1-2: metal housing, 62 | Para [0028] teaches a metal housing, 62, at ground potential).
PNG
media_image2.png
987
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora et al. (DE-2604650-A1 – refer to attached machine translation in a previous office action).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold teaches wherein the channel comprises a second opening (Dais - See annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), the insulating body is a joint body (Dais - Fig 2 shows the joining of the insulating body and the insulating channel closing element), the channel closing element is an insulating plug extending into the channel from the second opening (Dais - Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24 and Figs 1 & 2 show it is inserted into the second opening) and the first cable end and the insulating plug together forming said interface at which the first end of the insulating plug abuts the first end of the conductor of the first cable end (Dais - Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel).
The combination does not teach an end plug assembly. However, Waligora teaches an end plug assembly (Can be seen in Fig 1, the insulating plug, 15, is inserted into the connector, 16, and connected to the cable end, 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to be the end plug assembly of Waligora. A motivation for this medication is to check cables that are not yet connected to electrical equipment as taught by Waligora in Para [0003].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold teaches wherein the channel comprises a second opening (See annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), the insulating body is a joint body (Fig 2 shows the joining of the insulating body and the insulating channel closing element), the channel closing element is an insulating plug extending into the channel from the second opening (Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24 and Figs 1 & 2 show it is inserted into the second opening) and the first cable end and the insulating plug together forming an end plug assembly including said interface at which the first end of the insulating plug abuts the first end of the conductor of the first cable end (Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel), and
wherein the conductive connector is forming together with the first cable end and the insulating plug, and where a first part of the insulating plug is also located in the hollow interior of the conductive connector (Can be seen in Fig 2).
The combination does not teach an end plug assembly. However, Waligora teaches an end plug assembly (Can be seen in Fig 1, the insulating plug, 15, is inserted into the connector, 16, and connected to the cable end, 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to be the end plug assembly of Waligora. A motivation for this medication is to check cables that are not yet connected to electrical equipment as taught by Waligora in Para [0003].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold teaches wherein the channel closing element is an insulating channel closing element (Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24 and Figs 1 & 2 show it is inserted into the second opening) and a first part of the insulating channel closing element abuts a first end of the conductive connector (Can be seen in Figure 2).
The combination does not teach the insulating body is a termination body. However, Waligora teaches the insulating body is a termination body (Can be seen in Fig 1, the insulating plug, 15, is inserted into the connector, 16, and connected to the cable end, 2 and terminates at that end). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to be a termination body of Waligora. A motivation for this medication is to check cables that are not yet connected to electrical equipment as taught by Waligora in Para [0003].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Dais and Leopold teaches wherein the channel comprises a second opening (See annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), the insulating body is a joint body (Fig 2 shows the joining of the insulating body and the insulating channel closing element), the channel closing element is an insulating plug extending into the channel from the second opening (Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24 and Figs 1 & 2 show it is inserted into the second opening) and the first cable end and the insulating plug together forming an end plug assembly including said interface at which the first end of the insulating plug abuts the first end of the conductor of the first cable end (Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel).
Regarding Claim 10, Dais teaches sliding an insulating body onto an assembly via a first opening in the insulating body (Refer to annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais) or sliding the assembly onto the insulating body via the first opening,
the first opening leading to a channel centred around and stretching along a longitudinal axis through the insulating body (Refer to annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais) and
the assembly including a first end of a cable (Refer to annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais) having a conductor with a first end (Refer to annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), said sliding being performed until the first end of the conductor is located at a mating location in the channel (Refer to annotated Figs 1 & 2 of Dais), at which mating location the first end of the conductor abuts an insulating channel closing element thereby forming an interface between a first end of the channel closing element and the first end of the conductor of the first cable end at the mating location (Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel),
wherein the insulating body comprises an inner rubber deflector covering and provided radially outside of the mating location (Para [0033] teaches a deformable insulation, 67, may be integrated in the insulating sleeve, 64, and may be elastomer based on silicone or EPDM, EPDM being a synthetic rubber), and
there is a conductive connector (Figs 1 & 2: plug contact, 65) having a hollow interior (Para [0028] teaches the electrical conductor has, as part of the conductor, the plug contact, 65, which is in the form of a sleeve), the conductive connector being a cylindrical metallic connector (Para [0028] describes the plug contact as electrically conductive and in the form of a sleeve).
Dais does not explicitly teach that an exposed part of the conductor is inserted into the hollow interior at or in which said interface is located. However, Leopold teaches that an exposed part of the conductor is inserted into the hollow interior at or in which said interface is located (Fig 2 shows a conductor (sensor wires, 12) inserted into a metal sleeve (coupling section, 20) and abutting against another conductor (conductive cores, 28). Para [0030] teaches the coupling between these two wires is achieved by said coupling section, and that the coupling section may be a metal sleeve). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the metal sleeve of Dais to allow for the insertion of the conductor as in Leopold. A motivation for this modification is to electrically and mechanically connect two ends as taught in Leopold in Para [0030].
The combination of Dais in view of Leopold does not teach and end plug assembly However, Waligora teaches an end plug assembly (Can be seen in Fig 1, the insulating plug, 15, is inserted into the connector, 16, and connected to the cable end, 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to be the end plug assembly of Waligora. A motivation for this medication is to check cables that are not yet connected to electrical equipment as taught by Waligora in Para [0003].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora, as presented with respect to claim 10, teaches wherein the insulating body is a joint body (Dais - Fig 2 shows the joining of the insulating body and the insulating channel closing element), the channel closing element is an insulating plug (Dais - Para [0023] describes the channel closing element as containing insulation, 24) and further includes assembling the insulating plug and the first cable end into the end plug assembly so that the first end of the insulating plug abuts the first end of the conductor of the first cable end (Dais - Can be seen in Fig 2, the plug contact, 11, is in contact with the cable end at a mating location inside the channel), and where the sliding of the joint body onto the end plug assembly or the sliding of the end plug assembly onto the insulating body is made until the interface between the first end of the insulating plug and the first end of the conductor is located at the mating location inside the joint body (Dais - Can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the assembling comprises assembling the insulating plug, the first cable end and the conductive connector to the end plug assembly (Dais - Can be seen in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora, as presented with respect to claim 12, teaches wherein the assembling comprises placing a first part of the insulating plug and an exposed part of the conductor of the first cable end in a hollow interior of the conductive connector (Dais - Can be seen in Fig 2, the first part of the insulating plug is inserted into the conductive connector, 65, and makes electrical contact to the conductor, 63 | Leopold - Fig 2 shows a conductor (sensor wires, 12) inserted into a metal sleeve (coupling section, 20) and abutting against another conductor (conductive cores, 28). Para [0030] teaches the coupling between these two wires is achieved by said coupling section, and that the coupling section may be a metal sleeve).
Regarding Claim 14, Dais further teaches providing a grounded electrically conducting enclosure for the insulating body (Dais - Figs 1-2: metal housing, 62 | Para [0028] teaches a metal housing, 62, at ground potential).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold in view of Waligora, as presented with respect to claim 14, teaches wherein the providing of a grounded electrically conducting enclosure includes placing a metallic mesh around the insulating body and channel closing element and grounding the metallic mesh (Waligora - Para 15 teaches the braid, 20, may be used in conjunction with the housing, and, together these enclose the plug and joint body, see Fig 1).
Claim(s) 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dais in view of Leopold in view of Iadanza et al. (US-20210364548-A1).
Regarding Claim 9 and 19, the combination of Dais in view of Leopold does not teach a testing device configured to be connected to a second end of the cable. However, Iadanza teaches a testing device configured to be connected to a second end of the cable (Para [0057] teaches connecting cable end (Fig 2: 201) to a submersible apparatus (Fig 2: 1) in order to perform tests on the cable, this would necessarily require a testing device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cable of the combination to allow for the testing of Iadanza. A motivation for this is to check whether the cable has been damaged, as taught by Iadanza in paragraph [0002].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights