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
Figure 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Hardt (US 6176659).
Regarding claim 1: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches a fixing bolt for fixing a stranded conductor wire, comprising:
a tapered section (i.e. 11) extending along a central axis direction of the fixing bolt, the tapered section establishing an electrical contact with the stranded conductor wire, a first portion (i.e. base half of 11) of the tapered section is an arched cone frustum that is arched with respect to the central axis direction.
Regarding claim 2: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, wherein the arched cone frustum is a frustum of a right circular cone (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, wherein the arched cone frustum is convexly arched with respect to the central axis direction (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, wherein an outline of the arched cone frustum in a cross-sectional plane extending along the central axis direction is circularly arched (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, wherein the tapered section is rotationally symmetric (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 7, wherein a mantle surface (i.e. surface of 11) of the first portion is arched with respect to the central axis direction (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 15: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, further comprising a shearing section (i.e. 9) that fails at a predetermined torque.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”, background of instant specification and figure 5).
Regarding claim 19: AAPA (Background of specification and figure 5) teaches a wire connection assembly, comprising:
a stranded conductor wire (i.e. “stranded conductor wire” of paragraph [0002]); and
a connector assembly including a fixing bolt (i.e. 1 of paragraph [0002]) and a hollow connector (i.e. hollow connector of paragraph [0002]), the fixing bolt having a tapered section (i.e. 7 of paragraph [0002]) extending along a central axis direction of the fixing bolt, a first portion (i.e. base of 7) of the tapered section is an arched cone frustum that is arched with respect to the central axis direction, the hollow connector having an internally threaded bore (i.e. accepting 5) extending from an outside of the hollow connector through to an inner hollow volume of the hollow connector, the fixing bolt has a threaded section (i.e. 5) and is screwed with the internally threaded bore (i.e. as is understood from figure 5 and paragraph [0002]), the tapered section at least partially penetrates the stranded conductor wire and establishes an electrical contact with the stranded conductor wire (i.e. penetration described in paragraph [0003]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-6 and 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardt.
Regarding claim 5: Hardt teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 4, but does not specifically teach wherein the outline of the arched cone frustum in the cross-sectional plane extending along the central axis direction is a circular arc of 30° to 90° of a circle.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a termperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a termperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to select a circular arc of 30° to 90° of a circle for the outline of the arched cone frustum to optimize the piercing ability of the arched cone frustum taught by Hardt.
Regarding claim 6: Hardt teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 4, but does not specifically teach wherein the outline of the arched cone frustum in the cross-sectional plane extending along the central axis direction is a circular arc of a circle having a radius of 50% to 100% of a largest cross-sectional radius of the fixing bolt.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a termperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a termperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to select a circular arc of a circle having a radius of 50% to 100% of a largest cross-sectional radius of the fixing bolt for the outline of the arched cone frustum to optimize the piercing ability of the arched cone frustum taught by Hardt.
Regarding claim 9: Hardt teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, wherein the tapered section has a second portion (i.e. top half of 11) that is a cone frustum
but does not specifically teach a cone angle smaller than 21°.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a termperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a termperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to select a cone angle smaller than 21o to optimize the piercing ability of the cone frustum taught by Hardt.
Regarding claim 10: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 9, wherein the second portion extends directly from the first portion in the central axis direction (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 9, wherein the tapered section has a tip portion (i.e. tip of 11) centered on the central axis direction.
Regarding claim 12: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 11, wherein the tip portion extends directly from the second portion in the central axis direction (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 13: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 11, wherein the tip portion has a shape of a hemisphere (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 14: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches the fixing bolt according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein an outline of the arched cone frustum in a cross-sectional plane extending along the central axis direction is exponentially, hyperbolically or logarithmically arched.
However, it has been held that, “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a termperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a termperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have an outline of the arched cone frustum in a cross-sectional plane extending along the central axis is exponentially, hyperbolically or logarithmically arched to optimize the piercing ability of the arched cone frustum taught by Hardt.
Claims 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardt in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”, see background of instant specification).
Regarding claim 16: Hardt (Figure 1) teaches a connector assembly, comprising:
a fixing bolt (i.e. 1) including a tapered section (i.e. 11) extending along a central axis direction of the fixing bolt, the tapered section establishing an electrical contact with a stranded conductor wire (i.e. as in column 1 lines 6-10), a first portion (i.e. base portion) of the tapered section is an arched cone frustum that is arched with respect to the central axis direction;
the fixing bolt has a threaded section (i.e. 3);
but does not specifically teach a hollow connector having an internally threaded bore extending from an outside of the hollow connector through to an inner hollow volume of the hollow connector, the fixing bolt is screwed with the internally threaded bore.
However, AAPA teaches a hollow connector (i.e. hollow connector of paragraph [0002], line 2) having an internally threaded bore (i.e. for accepting the “screwable” fixing bolt of paragraph [0002], line 3) extending from an outside of the hollow connector through to an inner hollow volume of the hollow connector, the fixing bolt is screwed with the internally threaded bore (i.e. as described in paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a hollow connector tube to the assembly taught by Hardt to provide a space for the fixing bolt and stranded conductor wire.
Regarding claim 17: Hardt as modified by AAPA teaches the connector assembly according to claim 16, but Hardt does not further teach wherein the fixing bolt is one of a plurality of fixing bolts and the internally threaded bore is one of a plurality of internally threaded bores of the hollow connector, each of the fixing bolts is screwed in one of the internally threaded bores.
However, AAPA further teaches wherein the fixing bolt is one of a plurality of fixing bolts (i.e. “fixing bolts” of AAPA paragraph [0003]) and the internally threaded bore is one of a plurality of internally threaded bores (i.e. as required for accommodating each of the fixing bolts) of the hollow connector, each of the fixing bolts is screwed in one of the internally threaded bores.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the assembly taught by Hardt and modified by AAPA to have a plurality of fixing bolts and a plurality of internally threaded bores as taught by AAPA to better-secure the stranded wire.
Regarding claim 18: Hard as modified by AAPA teaches the connector assembly according to claim 16, but Hardt does not specifically teach wherein the hollow connector has a tubular shape.
However, AAPA further teaches wherein the hollow connector has a tubular shape. (i.e. AAPA’s hollow connector of paragraphs [0002]-[0003] receives wires at least one end, so it would be described as a tube)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the assembly taught by Hardt and modified by AAPA to have the hollow connector have a tubular shape as taught by AAPA so as to accommodate the wire.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of CN 102760978 B.
Regarding claim 20: AAPA teaches the wire connection assembly according to claim 19, but does not specifically teach wherein the arched cone frustum at least partially penetrates the stranded conductor wire and pushes the stranded conductor wire against a surface of the inner hollow volume of the hollow connector facing in a direction opposite the central axis direction.
However, CN 102760978 B (Figure 2) teaches wherein the arched cone frustum (i.e. tip of 200) at least partially penetrates the stranded conductor wire (i.e. 300) and pushes the stranded conductor wire against a surface (i.e. inner surface of 100) of the inner hollow volume of the hollow connector facing in a direction opposite the central axis direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the stranded wire taught by AAPA push against the inner surface of the hollow connector as taught by CN 102760978 B to provide a strong electrical connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MANGOT whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, 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 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 addition 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834