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
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers “166” shown in Figures 5-7 are all pointing at different places.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, line 28, it seems that “two pull 164 portions” should be described as -- two portions of the pull 164 -- because the drawings show the instant invention having only one pull 164.
Page 6, line 30, it seems that “a pull 164 portion” should be -- a portion of the pull 164 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, 16 and 17 recites, “selective retention feature”. However, while the present specification does not describe, “selective retention feature”, the present specification describes, “selective securement feature 196”, which is disposed on the upper portion 168 (see the last two lines 34-35 of Page 7). Therefore, it seems that “selective retention feature” recited in claims 11, 16 and 17 should be -- selective securement feature --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1-18, the independent claims 1, 10 and 14 identified the claimed invention as “A cable assembly”. However, all the claims 1-18 do not recite any cable or any structure related with a cable. Therefore, it is not clear how the claimed invention can be a cable assembly when there are no cables.
Claim 1, line 4 recites, “a portion of the pull”, but line 5 recites, “two pull portions”. It not clear how the portion of line 4 is structurally related with the two pull portions of line 5. If the portion of line 4 is the same element as two pull portions of line 5, it is not clear how one portion (a portion) can suddenly become the two portions (two pull portions).
The last line of claim 1 recites, “an angle of at least about 30 degrees”. It is not clear whether this angle is measured between two pull portions or between two pull portions and the lower pull cross member. If the angle is measured between two pull portions and the lower pull cross member, which one of the two pull portions is used to measure the angle with the lower pull cross member?
Claims 3-9 also recite “an angle” measured the same way as the angle recited in claim 1, but with different values. However, the angle recited in claims 3-9 also have the same problem as the angle recited in claim 1.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shen et al (US 11,171,445 B1).
Regarding claims 10-13, Shen discloses a cable assembly, comprising: (claim 10) 35 a and a lower portion 1311, the upper portion 1312 defining an upper pull aperture13122 and the lower portion 1311 defining a lower pull aperture 13114; and a pull 132 disposed proximate the latch 13, a portion (not labeled, see Fig. 3) of the pull 132 being disposed within the lower pull aperture 13114 and a portion of the pull being disposed within the upper pull aperture 13122;
(claim 11) wherein at least one selective retention feature 13121 is disposed on the upper portion 1312;
(claim 12) wherein the selective retention feature 13121 selectively secures the cable assembly to a mating connector 2; and
(claim 13) wherein the lower portion 1311 defines a retention feature 13111 and the latch 13 is secured to the housing 12 by the retention feature 13111.
Regarding claim 14-18, Shen discloses a cable assembly, comprising: (claim 14) a housing 12; a latch 13 connected to the housing 12, the latch 13 defining an upper portion 1312 and a lower portion 1311, the upper portion 1312 including an upper pull cross member 13122 and the lower portion 1311 defining a lower pull cross member 13115; and a pull 132 disposed proximate the latch 13, a portion (see Fig. 3) of the pull 132 being disposed below the lower pull cross member 13115 as measured along a Z axis (see Fig. 3) and a portion of the pull being looped around the upper pull cross member 13122;
(claim 15) wherein a portion of the pull 132 extends above the upper pull cross member 13122 as measured along the Z axis;
(claim 16) wherein at least one selective retention feature 13121 is disposed on the upper portion 1312;
(claim 17) wherein the selective retention feature 13121 selectively secures the cable assembly to a mating connector 2; and
(claim 18) wherein the lower portion 1311 defines a retention feature 13111 and the latch 13 is secured to the housing 12 by the retention feature 13111.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al (US 11,171,445 B1) in view of Hsiao et al (US 11,228,140 B2) or Wang et al (US 11,303,065 B2).
Regarding claims 1-9, Shen discloses a cable assembly, comprising: (claim 1) a housing 12; a latch 13 connected to the housing 12, the latch 12 defining a lower pull cross member 13115; and a pull 132 disposed proximate the latch 13, a portion of the pull 132 at least partially travelling around the lower pull cross member 13115 (see Fig. 3) such that two pull portions (see Fig. 3) extending away from the lower pull cross member 13115; (claim 2) wherein the latch 13 defines a retention feature 13111 and the latch 13 is secured to the housing 12 by the retention feature 13111.
However, Shen does not disclose that two pull portions (see Fig. 3) extending away from the lower pull cross member 13115 are separated by an angle of at least about 30-100 degrees.
On the other hand, Hsiao discloses a cable assembly, comprising: (claim 1) a housing 31; a latch 32 connected to the housing 31, the latch 32 defining a lower pull cross member (not labeled, see Fig. 5 showing a cross member between two hooks 3213 and adjacent to the through hole 3214); and a pull 33 disposed proximate the latch 32, a portion of the pull 33 at least partially travelling around the lower pull cross member (see Fig. 9) such that two pull portions (see Fig. 3) extending away from the lower pull cross member; (claim 2) wherein the latch 32 defines a retention feature 3213 and the latch 32 is secured to the housing 31 by the retention feature 3213.
In addition, Wang discloses a cable assembly, comprising: (claim 1) a housing 4; a latch 6 connected to the housing 4, the latch 6 defining a lower pull cross member 63; and a pull 7 disposed proximate the latch 6, a portion 71 of the pull 7 at least partially travelling around the lower pull cross member 63 (see Fig. 17) such that two pull portions (see Fig. 17) extending away from the lower pull cross member 63; (claim 2) wherein the latch 6 defines a retention feature 623 and the latch 13 is secured to the housing 4 by the retention feature 623.
As seen by all three cited references, Shen, Hsiao and Wang disclose three similar structure latches with pulls, where a latch having lower pull cross member attached to a pull with two pull portion that is extending away from the lower pull cross member by three different separation angles. Therefore, the separation angle can be changed without affecting or changing the functions of the latch with pull depending on the location of the lower pull cross member on the latch and the extension of the pull in relationship to the latch.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable assembly taught by Shen such that it would have two pull portions of the pull extending away from the lower pull cross member can be separated by a desired angle as taught by either Hsiao or Wang because the functions of the latch and the pull are not affected or changed by the change of the separation angle. Therefore, choosing the right separation angle only deals with finding the optimum value separation angle for the latch and the pull. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831