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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 February 2026 have been fully considered but the amendment required new references, as shown below.
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 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihira et al. (“Kihira”; US 2002/0177351), in view of Miyamoto (US 2021/0104829).
Regarding claim 1: Kihira discloses a connector (Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of terminals (within 11) parallel to each other;
a plurality of wires (W, connected to 20, Fig. 6) to be respectively connected to the plurality of terminals; and
a housing (10, Fig. 1) made of resin (paragraph 0028) and including a tubular portion (11) having an opening (at 12) for exposing end parts of the plurality of terminals and a holding portion (15) projecting from the tubular portion (11) toward an outer peripheral side of the tubular portion (as 15 surrounds the exterior, or outer periphery, of 11), the holding portion holding the plurality of terminals and the plurality of wires (when plugged together, paragraph 0036),
the housing including a rib (see arrow in the annotated Fig. 1, below) coupling an outer surface of a part of the holding portion located between two mutually adjacent ones of the terminals and an outer surface of the tubular portion (given the open “comprising” language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terminals can be taken to include the far left and far right terminal, resulting in the rib being between those two), and
the rib including a recess (see arrow below, there is a recess clearly shown on the opposite side of the arrow point).
Kihira does not explicitly disclose wherein an extending direction of the wires in the holding portion crosses an axial direction of the tubular portion.
However, Miyamoto discloses an extending direction of the wires (22, Fig. 1) in the holding portion (24) crosses an axial direction of the tubular portion (21, in other words, they are at a right angle to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holding portion and tubular portion to have the claimed extending direction in order to allow for a right-angled connection.
PNG
media_image1.png
483
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Kihira discloses if parts of the terminals to be connected to the wires are wire connecting portions, the rib projects from an outer surface of a part of the holding portion located between two mutually adjacent ones of the wire connecting portions (similar to above, as the wire connecting portions are located where the terminals are).
Regarding claim 10: Kihira discloses the rib includes walls configured to define the recess (as there is a recess on the opposite side of the point of the above arrow in annotated Fig. 1), and
the recess is defined between two of the walls (the recess can be seen to be between the two walls).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihira and Miyamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Okamoto (JP 2017-045572 A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 6: Kihira discloses a tubular portion but does not explicitly disclose an interlock connector provided inside the tubular portion, the interlock connector electrically detecting whether or not the housing is connected to a connection target at a proper position, wherein: the interlock connector is provided in parallel to the plurality of terminals in a parallel direction of the plurality of terminals.
However, Okamoto discloses an interlock connector (70) provided inside the tubular portion (akin to 33), the interlock connector electrically detecting whether or not the housing is connected to a connection target at a proper position (third full paragraph of page 2 of the translation), wherein:
the interlock connector is provided in parallel to the plurality of terminals (48) in a parallel direction of the plurality of terminals (shown in Fig. 2, 70 mates with 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubular portion of Kihira to include the interlock connector of Okamoto in order to ensure the connection is secure.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihira and Miyamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Regnier et al. (“Regnier”; US 2018/0316133).
Regarding claim 9: Kihira discloses the rib and the outer surface of the part of the holding portion connected to the outer surface of the tubular portion, but does not explicitly disclose the rib suppresses tilting of the holding portion with respect to the tubular portion.
However, Regnier discloses the rib (32, Fig. 2) suppresses tilting of the holding portion (10) with respect to the tubular portion (110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rib of Kihira to have it suppress tilting of the holding and tubular portions, as disclosed by Regnier, in order to increase retention capability (paragraph 0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the connector of claim 3, specifically comprising:
the holding portion projects from the first end part, and the rib is provided on a side where the second end part is located when viewed from the holding portion, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are allowed due to their dependency on claim 3.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the connector of claim 7, specifically comprising:
the accommodating portion is configured to restrict insertion of the cover into the tubular portion by contacting the terminal if the cover is inserted into the tubular portion while being inverted about a center axis of the tubular portion with respect to a proper posture, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claim 8 is allowed due to its dependency on claim 7.
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834