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 were received on 04/08/2026. These drawings are approved.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 3, “the mating connector housing” should be -- the mating plug housing -- because claims 1-6 are amended to recite, “mating plug housing”. The last line of claim 6 also recites, “the mating plug housing”.
Claim 6, lines 5-6, it seems that “when the connector plug housing or the mating plug housing are connected” should be -- when the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing are connected --.
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 4-5 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.
The last line of claim 4 recites, “the housing”. It is not clear which housing that “the housing” is referring to since claims 1 and 4 recite at least three housing, the connector plug housing, the mating plug housing and the sleeve housing.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plug-in contact elements" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite, “plug-in contact elements”.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair et al (US 4,647,130) in view of Kataoka et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0372413 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blair discloses a plug-in connector 100 for electrically conductive and releasable contacting of contact elements, comprising: a plug-in connector plug 10 having a connector plug housing 20 and a mating plug-in connector plug 110 having a mating plug housing 120, at least one of the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 120 having a plugging contour 38 and 40 or 138 and 140 formed on a plugging side 26 or 126 and within the at least one connector plug housing 20 and mating plug housing 120 for blind plugging (see abstract), wherein the plug-in connector plug 10 has a plug-in connector frame 18 and the mating plug-in connector plug 110 has a mating connector frame 118, wherein at least one of the plug-in connector frame 18 and the mating connector frame 118 serves as an adapter to allow fixing on the connector plug housing 20 or the mating plug housing 120, preferably with any geometry.
However, Blair does not disclose each of the plug-in connector frame 18 and the mating connector frame 118 having a sealing surface at a contact surface.
On the other hand, Kataoka discloses a plug-in connector, comprising: a plug-in connector plug 10 having a connector plug housing 20 and a mating plug-in connector plug 70 having a mating plug housing 710, wherein the plug-in connector plug 10 has a plug-in connector frame 220 and the mating plug-in connector plug 70 has a mating connector frame (not labeled, see Fig. 15), wherein at least one of the plug-in connector frame 220 and the mating connector frame serves as an adapter to allow fixing on the connector plug housing 20 or the mating plug housing 710, preferably with any geometry, and each of the plug-in connector frame 220 and the mating connector frame having a sealing surface 290, 730 at a contact surface to prevent water from invading into the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 710. Also, the use of sealing surface is common knowledge and commonly used to stop water from coming into a connector housing.
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 Blair such that the connector frame having a sealing surface at a contact surface as taught by Kataoka because the sealing surface will prevent water from invading into the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing.
Regarding claim 2, Blair discloses the plugging contour provides blind plugging between the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 120.
However, Blair does not disclose a sealing function is achieved when the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 120 are engaged.
On the other hand, Kataoka discloses a sealing function is achieved by a primary seal 40 when the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 710 are engaged to provide waterproofing between the connector plug housing 20 and the mating plug housing 710.
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 Blair such that a sealing function is achieved when the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing are engaged as taught by Kataoka because the sealing function would provide waterproofing between the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing.
Regarding claim 4, Blair discloses the plug-in connector plug 10 and/or the mating plug-in connector plug has a sleeve housing 136 extending from the plug-in connector frame 18 and the mating connector frame 118, respectively.
However, Blair does not disclose the sleeve housing 136 facilitating a media-tight seal between the contact surface and the housing.
On the other hand, Kataoka discloses the plug-in connector plug 10 and/or the mating plug-in connector plug 70 has a sleeve housing 50 and 710 extending from the plug-in connector frame 220 and the mating connector frame, respectively to facilitate a media-tight seal between the contact surface and the housing.
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 Blair such that the connector a sleeve housing extending from the plug-in connector frame and the mating connector frame 118, respectively, to facilitate a media-tight seal between the contact surface and the housing as taught by Kataoka because the sleeve housing would provide waterproofing between the contact surface and the housing.
Regarding claim 5, Blair discloses the plugging contour having a geometry such that the plugging contour is only possible for the plug-in contact elements of the plug-in connector plugs to be plugged together in the correct orientation.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair et al and Kataoka et al as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Daoud (US 5,975,945) or Mullaney et al (US 6,848,949 B2).
Claim 3 recites that “the plug-in connector plug and/or the mating plug-in connector plug has a potting frame on the connector plug housing 20 or the mating plug housing 120, respectively, wherein within the potting frame a potting compound is introduced such that a media-tight seal is achieved.”
However, both Blair and Kataoka do not disclose the potting frame having the potting compound as recited in claim 3.
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 Blair or Kataoka 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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair et al and Kataoka et al as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Shuey et al (US 8,147, 254 B2).
Claim 6 recites that “the connector plug housing has a connector step and the mating plug housing has a mating step, and wherein the connector step and the mating step are configured to engage one another when the connector plug housing or the mating plug housing are connected.”
However, both Blair and Kataoka do not disclose the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing having a connector step and a mating step, respectively.
On the other hand, Shuey discloses a plug-in connector 100 comprising a plug-in connector plug 102 having a connector plug housing 106 and a mating plug-in connector plug 104 having a mating plug housing 106, wherein the connector plug housing 106 has a connector step 114, 116 (see Figs. 22-24) and the mating plug housing 106 has a mating step 114, 116 (see Figs. 22-24), and wherein the connector step 114, 116 and the mating step 114, 116 are configured to engage one another when the connector plug housing 106 and the mating plug housing 106 are connected. The connector step and the mating step provide a visual indication that the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing are properly oriented and connected during mating.
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 Blair or Kataoka such that the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing have the connector step and the mating step as taught by Shuey because the connector step and the mating step would provide a visual indication and a proper orientation of the connector plug housing and the mating plug housing when they are connected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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
It is unnecessary, however, that inventions of references be physically combinable to render obvious an applicant’s invention. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference but what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981).
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
Prosecution Insights