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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a power conductor extending from the chamber at the terminating end.
II. Claims 21-25, drawn to an insulator surrounding the power conductor and a cable shield surrounding the insulator.
III. Claims 26-29, drawn to a threaded bolt including an insulating cover including a bolt seal sealed between the threaded bolt and the first housing.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the respective subcombinations as claimed because the power conductor of Group I does not require the particulars of Groups II and III, and Groups II and III have separate utility or in other combinations.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: a reference can read on one group but not the other and vice-versa.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions 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 inventions 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 invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kaehny” (US 2018/0375227) in view of “Hattori” (US 2012/0077360).
Regarding claim 1, Kaehny discloses 1. A power harness comprising: a housing having a chamber extending between a terminating end and a mating end configured to be mated with a mating harness connector of the power harness, the housing including a hub at the mating end with a bore passing through the housing (Figs. 3-5, [0024]-[0030]; the connector 3 at the top is a power harness comprising the collar 9 which is a housing having a chamber to be mated with the connector 3 at the bottom, the collar 9 has a hub and a bore passing through the housing);
a power conductor extending from the chamber at the terminating end (Figs. 3-5, [0024]-[0030]; the first conductor 5 extends from the collar 9 at the terminating end);
a power contact received in the chamber, the power contact having a terminating end terminated to the power conductor and a mating end aligned with the bore at the mating end of the housing, the power contact including a base plate at the mating end and side walls extending from the base plate on opposite sides of a gap, the side walls having outer edges opposite the base plate, the outer edges forming mating interfaces for mating engagement with a mating power contact of the mating harness connector, the base plate being electrically connected to the mating power contact through the side walls, the base plate having an opening aligned with the gap (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the end 33 of the first conductor 5 is received in the chamber, is aligned with the bore, and is a base plate, the current bridge 11 are contact sleeves 12 which are construed as two combined portions that each extend from the base plate on opposite sides of the gap, have outer edges for mating interfaces with the electrodes of the lower connector 3, the end 33 is electrically connected to the lower connector 3 through the current bridge 11 and contact sleeves 12, the end 33 has an opening aligned with the gap for the screw 17);
and a threaded connector received in the hub and passing through the bore, the threaded connector aligned with the opening and located in the gap between the side walls, the threaded connector configured to be threadably coupled to a mating threaded connector of the mating harness connector (Figs. 3-5, [0024]-[0030]; the screw 17 is received in the hub and passes through the bore in the end 33, the screw 17 is aligned with the opening and located in the gap between the portions of the current bridge, the screw is threadably coupled to a mating threaded connector of the lower connector 3).
Kaehny does not disclose side walls separated from each other, the outer edges forming separate mating interfaces for mating engagement when the outer edges of the separate side walls are pressed into mating engagement.
Hattori discloses side walls separated from each other, the outer edges forming separate mating interfaces for mating engagement when the outer edges of the separate side walls are pressed into mating engagement (Figs. 1-2, [0054], [0076]; the terminals 4a-c are side walls separated from each other, the outer edges of the terminals 4a-c forming separate mating interfaces for mating engagement when the outer edges of the separate side walls of terminals 4a-c are pressed into mating engagement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kaehny’s power harness with Hattori’s structure in order to provide for an alternate configuration for a harness that assures the stable connections between the first joining terminals and the second joining terminals, respectively, as suggested by Hattori at Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Hattori discloses the base plate and the side walls are fixed to each other and form a U-shaped structure (Figs. 1-2, [0054], [0076]; the terminals 4a-c are side walls and form a U-shape with the plate 51).
Regarding claim 3, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Hattori discloses the side walls extend parallel to each other on opposite sides of the opening, each side wall including a front edge and a rear edge extending between the corresponding outer edge and the base plate, the front and rear edges located further distances from the opening than other portions of the side walls (Figs. 1-2, [0054], [0076]; the terminals 4a-c are side walls that extend parallel to each other, each side wall of terminals 4a-c include a front edge and a rear edge extending between the corresponding outer edge and the base plate, the front and rear edges located further distances from the opening than other portions of the side walls of terminals 4a-c).
Regarding claim 4, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 4. The power harness of claim 1, wherein each side wall extends between a front and a rear, the gap being open at the front (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the current bridge 11 are contact sleeves 12 which extends between a front and a rear, the gap is open at the front).
Regarding claim 5, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 5. The power harness of claim 1, wherein the bore extends along a bore axis, the base plate being oriented perpendicular to the bore axis, the side walls being oriented parallel to the bore axis (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the bore extends along a bore axis, , the end 33 being oriented perpendicular to the bore axis, the current bridge 11 are contact sleeves 12 being oriented parallel to the bore axis).
Regarding claim 6, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 6. The power harness of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a contact channel, the power contact being loaded into the contact channel (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the housing collar 9 includes a contact channel, the first conductor 5 power contact being loaded into the contact channel).
Regarding claim 7, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 7. The power harness of claim 1, wherein the housing includes blocking walls surrounding the power contact, the blocking walls being positioned relative to the power contact to make the power contact touch safe (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the collar 9 surrounds the power contact and make it touch safe).
Regarding claim 8, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 8. The power harness of claim 1, further comprising a housing seal at the mating end of the housing configured to interface with the mating harness connector to create a sealed interface with the mating harness connector (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the collar 9 for the top and bottom connectors 3 create a sealed interface with each other).
Regarding claim 9, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 9. The power harness of claim 1, wherein the threaded connector includes a threaded connector seal configured to seal between the threaded connector and the housing (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the screw 17 has the flange 46 which creates a seal between the screw 17 and the housing collar 9).
Regarding claim 10, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny discloses 10. The power harness of claim 1, wherein the threaded connector includes an insulating cover and an exterior of the housing, the insulating cover positioned to make the threaded connector touch safe (Figs. 3-5, [0023]-[0030]; the screw 17 includes the insulation 34 to make the screw 17 touch safe).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehny in view of Hattori and “Wu” (US 6,196,874).
Regarding claim 11, Kaehny in view of Hattori discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kaehny does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Wu discloses a housing shield in the chamber, the housing shield providing shielding for the power contact, the housing shield configured to engage the mating harness connector to electrically common the housing shield and the mating harness connector (Figs. 1-4, Abstract, col. 2, lines 24-39; the connector 2 is for power transmission and comprises an EMI shield 21 which engages with a connector to establish a ground path to electrically common the EMI shield 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kaehny’s power harness, as modified by Hattori, with Wu’s connector shield and grounding structure in order to provide for an alternate configuration to shield the power conductors in a housing from electromagnetic interference, as suggested by Wu at Abstract.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights