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 § 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 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger (DE19945317A1) in view of Architekt et al. (2020/0251845).
With regard to claim 1, Holger teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-15: “A contact insert 1, 2, 3, and 4 for an industrial plug connector, the contact insert comprising: a connection side 2 for the connection of individual conductors (wires connecting to the right end of 4 in figure 1)… and a contact side 1 for electrical connection to a mating plug connector or a socket (contact part counterpart, as described on page 4 lines 1-4), wherein, on the connection side 2, n connection openings (where 4 extend into 2 in figure 1) are provided for the individual conductors… wherein, on the contact side 1, m contact openings (where 4 are received in 1 in figure 1) are provided to allow access to each of a plurality of mating contact elements of the mating plug connector or the socket (contact part counterparts as described on page 4 lines 9-15), wherein n and m are natural numbers and m is greater than n”.
Holger does not specifically teach the individual conductors being of a multi-strand 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 use individual conductors strands from a multi-strand cable in order to keep the conductors close before connecting to the contact insert. 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).
Holger also does not teach m greater than n “such that the number of individual conductors of the multi-strand cable to be provided in the connection openings is less than the number of mating contact elements that can be accessed through the contact openings”.
Architekt teaches, as shown in figures 2 and 4 and taught in paragraphs 40 and 51, m (number of terminals 46) greater than n (number of crimping sections 62) “such that the number of individual conductors (conductor mating with 62 in figure 4) of the multi-strand cable (wire described in paragraph 51) to be provided in the connection openings (between 66 in figure 4) is less than the number of mating contact elements (terminals of electric fuses described in paragraph 40)that can be accessed through the contact openings 58”. 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 Architekt with the invention of Holger in order to increase compactness of the connector (Architekt, paragraph 52).
With regard to claim 2, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-15: “wherein the contact insert comprises at least one contact element 4 having a connection region for electrical connection to a conductor of the… cable and a contact region for electrical contacting of the mating contact element of the mating plug connector or the socket, wherein the connection region of the contact element 4 is arranged in one or the connection openings on the connection side 2 of the contact insert and the contact region of the contact elements is arranged in one of the contact openings on the contact side 1 of the contact insert”.
With regard to claim 3, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 2, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “wherein the contact element 4 is designed as a socket contact”.
With regard to claim 4, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 2, as shown above.
Architekt also teaches, as shown in figure 2 and 4: “wherein the connection region 62 is designed as a crimp connection”. 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 Architekt with the invention of Holger as modified by Architekt in order to increase compactness of the connector (Architekt, paragraph 52).
With regard to claim 5, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-15: “wherein the contact insert has a bridge contact 3 having exactly one connection region (roughly upper-right side of 3 in figure 1) for electrical connection to a conductor of the cable… and at least two contact regions (left side of 4 in figure 1) for respective electrical contacting of a respective mating contact element of the mating plug connector or the socket”.
With regard to claim 6, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-15: “wherein the bridge contact 3 has at least three contact regions for respective electrical contacting of the respective mating contact element of the mating plug connector or the socket”.
With regard to claim 7, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-17: “wherein the bridge contact 3 is formed from a metal plate wherein at least two contact regions are attached on one side (left side in figure 1) of the metal plate, and wherein exactly one connection region is attached on an other side (right side in figure 1) of the metal plate, so that the contact regions and the one connection region are electrically conductively connected to one another via the metal plate”.
With regard to claim 11, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 1 last 3 lines: “wherein the contact insert has a protective earth (PE) contact (taught on page 1 last 3 lines)”.
With regard to claim 12, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “…and a contact insert according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7: “A system, comprising: a plug connector housing 1 and 2”.
With regard to claim 13, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The system according to claim 12”, as shown above.
Holger does not teach: “wherein the plug connector housing comprises plastic”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention form the plug connector housing since plastic is well-known in the art for making insulating housings and enables forming the housings into specific shapes. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger (DE19945317A1) in view of Architekt et al. (2020/0251845) and Takeshi et al. (WO0128041A1).
With regard to claim 8, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 7”, as shown above.
Neither Holger nor Architekt teach: “wherein the contact regions are riveted to the metal plate”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Takeshi teaches, as shown in figure 8 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the contact regions 30 are riveted to the metal plate 40”. 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 Takeshi with the invention of Holger as modified by Architekt in order to hold the contact onto the plate (Takeshi, Abstract).
With regard to claim 9, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 7”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-17: “wherein the connection region of the bridge contact 3 comprises a pin contact 4… and a socket contact element (wires connecting to the right end of 4 in figure 1) plugged onto the pin contact 4”.
Neither Holger nor Architekt teach the pin contact “riveted to the metal plate”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Takeshi teaches, as shown in figures 5-8 and taught in the Abstract, the pin contact 30 “riveted to the metal plate 40”. 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 Takeshi with the invention of Holger as modified by Architekt in order to hold the contact onto the plate (Takeshi, Abstract).
With regard to claim 10, Holger as modified by Architekt and Takeshi teaches: “The contact insert according to claim 9”, as shown above.
Holger also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7 and taught on page 4 lines 1-17: “wherein the socket contact element of the bridge contact 4 is identical to the remaining contact elements 4 of the contact insert”.
With regard to claim 14, Holger as modified by Architekt teaches: “…a system according to claim 12”, as shown above.
Neither Holger nor Architekt teach: “A module for modular plug connectors, comprising… wherein the module can be inserted into a module holding frame that can be mounted in a modular manner”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Takeshi teaches, as shown in figures 6-7: “A module 21 for modular plug connectors 30 and 40, comprising… wherein the module 21 can be inserted into a module holding 20 frame that can be mounted in a modular manner”. 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 Takeshi with the invention of Holger as modified by Architekt in order to hold multiple plug connectors together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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