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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (IDS). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Paragraph [0008], line 1 describes a foreign reference EP 3 790 126 A1, but this foreign reference is not listed in IDS filed on 01/02/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the sealing surface of the frame cannot be clearly identified in the drawings since this sealing surface is not identified in the drawings with a line and an assigned reference number.
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 following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The present specification does not include section headings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 3-5 recite pronoun “its” and “it”. The examiner suggests the applicant to change these pronouns to proper nouns for clear understanding.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a plugging contour” and “a frame”, but claim 1 does not recite how these two elements are structurally related to each other because the plugging contour and the frame are working separately from each other.
Claim 1, line 5 recites, “a housing”, but it is not clear what this housing is and to which element that this housing belongs to.
Claim 1, line 6 recites, “a sealing surface”, but because this sealing surface is not identified in the drawings, it is not clear which surface of the frame is the sealing surface.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plug-in connector housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is not clear whether this plug-in connector housing and the housing recited in claim 1, line 5 are the same housing or two different housings.
In claim 2, it is not clear how the plugging contour simply lying within the plug-in connector housing can achieve a sealing function because claim 2 does not recite any seal for providing sealing function. Is any one of the plugging contour or the plug-in connector housing made of a material that can provide the sealing function?
Claim 3 recites, “a potting frame” and “plug-in connector housing”, but claim 3 does not recite how these two elements are structurally related with all the elements recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “a sleeve housing” and “plug-in connector housing”, but claim 4 does not recite how these two elements are structurally related with all the elements recited in claim 1.
Claim 5, line 3 recites, “the plug-in connector plugs”, which is in plural form, but claim 1 recites, “a plug-in connector plug”, which is in singular form. Therefore, it is not clear how a single plug-in connector plug suddenly became plural plug-in connector plugs.
Claim 6 recites, “a plug-in connector plug housing and a mating plug-in connector plug housing, each with a plug-in connector housing step”, but claim 6 does not recite how these elements are structurally related with all the elements recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchter et al (US 5,890,922).
Buchter discloses a plug-in connector 20 for electrically conductive and releasable contacting of contact elements 44, 54, comprising (claim 1) a plug-in connector plug 20 and a mating plug-in connector plug 20, each with a plugging contour 26, 28 formed on its plugging side for blind plugging, wherein the plug-in connector plug 20 and/or the mating plug-in connector plug 20 has a frame 38 which, as an adapter, allows fixing on a housing 70, preferably with any geometry, wherein the frame 38 has a sealing surface 62 at the contact surface with respect to the housing 70; (claim 2) wherein the plugging contour 26, 28 within the plug-in connector housing 22, so that a sealing function can be achieved by the plug-in connector housing 22; (claim 4) wherein the plug-in connector plug 20 and/or the mating plug-in connector plug 20 has a sleeve housing 80 on its respective plug-in connector housing 22, so that a media-tight seal is achieved; (claim 5) wherein the plugging contour 26, 28 has a geometry such that it is only possible for the plug-in contact elements 44, 54 of the plug-in connector plugs 20 to be plugged together in the correct orientation; and (claim 6) wherein the plug-in connector plug 20 and the mating plug-in connector plug 20 have a plug-in connector plug housing 22 and a mating plug-in connector plug housing 22, respectively, each with a plug-in connector housing step (not labeled, see Fig. 2 size difference between the contour 26 and 28 forming the plug-in connector housing step).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchter et al (US 5,890,922) in view of Daoud (US 5,975,945) or Mullaney et al (US 6,848,949 B2).
Buchter discloses the plug-in connector plug 20 and/or the mating plug-in connector plug 20 having a frame 40 that can be use as a potting frame.
However, Buchter does not disclose potting compound being introduced within the potting frame 40 to achieve a media-tight seal.
On the other hand, Daoud discloses a plug-in connector 100 comprising a potting frame 106 for holding a gel bath 124 within the potting frame 106 to achieve a media-tight seal when a plug-in connector 120 connected with a mating plug-in connector 122.
In addition, Mullaney discloses a jack connector assembly 101 (see Fig. 13) comprising a housing 105 having an internal cavity 102 where a potting compound 189 within the internal cavity 102 of the housing 105 such that the potting compound 189 provides a medial-tight seal when the jack connector 101connected with a mating jack plug 180.
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 plug-in connector taught by Buchter such that it would have a potting compound as taught by either Daoud or Mullaney because the potting compound would provide a medial-tight seal when a connector is connected with a mating connector. Also, the use of the potting compound for providing a seal is well-known and used in many different types of electrical connectors.
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