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 .
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen
(CN212011467U).
With regard to claim 1, Chen teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “An electrical connector unit (shown in figure 3) for a cable (shown extending upward from 100 in figure 5) comprising: an outer housing 100; an inner housing 300 located in the outer housing 100, the inner housing 300 having a first sub housing 340 and a second sub housing 350 that are connected to each other via a bridge element 810, the inner housing 300 being directly engageable with the outer housing 100”.
With regard to claim 2, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 1”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein the first sub housing 340, the bridge element 810, and the second sub housing 350 are continuous, such that the inner housing 300 forms an integral component (as shown in figure 1)”.
With regard to claim 3, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 1”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein one of the outer housing 100 and the inner housing 300 has opposed protrusions (shown below), and the other of the outer housing 100 and the inner housing 300 has mutually opposed recessed shoulders (shown below) with which each of the protrusions engage”.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 3”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein two engagement points (where the protrusions and shoulders engage in figure 7 above) of the inner housing 300 engage the outer housing 100”.
With regard to claim 5, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 4”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein the two engagement points are positioned in line symmetry or point symmetry”.
With regard to claim 6, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 1”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “further comprising a device connector (shown in figure 4) assembled with the connector, wherein the device connector has a conductive device housing 200, a first insulating device housing (portion of 400 mating with 340 in figure 7) positioned in the conductive device housing 200 opposite to the first sub housing 340, and a second insulating device housing (portion of 400 mating with 350 in figure 7) positioned opposite to the second sub housing 350”.
With regard to claim 7, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 6”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 5 lines 36-42 of the translation: “wherein, the inner housing 300 is adapted to be assembled to the outer housing 100 in predetermined and rotated positions (page 5 lines 36-42 of the translation teaches the inner housing can be inserted in reverse positions)”.
With regard to claim 8, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 7”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 5 lines 36-42 of the translation: “wherein the outer housing 100 may be oriented in predetermined and rotated positions (page 5 lines 36-42 of the translation teaches the inner housing can be inserted in reverse positions, which would enable the same for the outer housing)”.
With regard to claim 9, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 8”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein a plane size of the first sub housing 340 and a plane size of the second sub housing 350 are different from each other”.
With regard to claim 10, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 6”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein, a protrusion (shown in figure 4 below) provided on one of the sub housing 340 and the insulating device housing and a recessed shoulder (shown in figure 3 below) provided on the other thereof are matable in either the first sub housing 340 and the first insulating device housing or the second sub housing 350 and the second insulating device housing”.
PNG
media_image2.png
700
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 10”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein the protrusion and the recessed shoulder are located opposite to each other to form a keying arrangement for assembly”.
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 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN212011467U).
With regard to claim 12, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 1”, as shown above.
Chen also teaches, as shown in figure 5: “wherein the cable is a… cable having at least a first internal cable (left cable in figure 5) and a second internal cable (right cable in figure 5)”.
Chen does not teach the cable being a single composite cable. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cables into one cable in order to more easily position the internal cable portions. Also, 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 (1993).
With regard to claim 13, Chen teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “An electrical connector unit (shown in figure 3) for a cable (shown extending upward from 100 in figure 5) comprising: an outer housing 100; an inner housing 300 formed from an insulating material and arranged in the outer housing 100, the inner housing 300 including: a first sub housing 340; a second sub housing 650; and a bridge 810… connecting the first sub housing 340 and the second sub housing 350”
Chen does not teach the bridge “integrally formed with the first sub housing and the second sub housing” or the first sub housing, the second sub housing and the bridge “form a single integral component”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the first sub housing, second sub housing, and bridge in order to hold the first sub housing, second sub housing, and bridge in position. Also, 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 (1993).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN212011467U) in view of Matsuoka (2024/0250471).
With regard to claim 14, Chen teaches: “The electrical connector unit as set forth in claim 13”, as shown above.
Chen does not teach: “further comprising a metallic shield mounted against a top surface of the inner housing and the second sub housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Matsuoka teaches, as shown in figures 2-4: “further comprising a metallic shield 150 mounted against a top surface of the inner housing 80 and the second sub housing 80”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Matsuoka with the invention of Chen in order to provide shielding (Matsuoka, paragraph 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited bridge element does not connect the first sub housing and the second sub housing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the cited bridge element is connected to both the first sub housing and the second sub housing and therefore meets the claim limitations as currently constructed. With regard to claim 2, the Applicant argues that the cited first sub housing, second sub housing, and bridge element are not continuous to form an integral component because the structures are different materials. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the cited reference shows those components forming an integral component in figure 1. Also, the claim language does not include the type of materials forming these components, so this argument is inconsistent with the language of the claim.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights