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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because they include shading that reduces legibility and does not aid understanding of the invention. See Figs. 2, 3, and 7.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claim 1 and 11, line 4, “the cavity” lacks antecedent basis.
In claims 6 and 16, on line 1, it appears that “first opening second opening” is missing language.
In claims 8 and 18, line 3, “font” appears to be a misspelling of front.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 11 – 13, and 15- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,333,263 (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a modular plug system including: a housing (16) including an opening extending from a back end of the plug to an opposing front wall (one of the through openings of 16 which contains a wire); a plurality of slots in a top surface that extend into a cavity (slots A which extend so as to open upward into the open space above); a first opening adjacent to a second opening (openings B, see below); a third opening adjacent to a fourth opening (openings C, see below); a partition separating the first opening and second opening from the third opening and fourth opening (the rib between B and C), wherein at least two slots include a conductive material (wires are in the slots).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Magnified and marked up version of Figure 5
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses wherein the first opening and second opening are the same size (see above).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses wherein the third opening and fourth opening are the same size (see above).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses wherein each of the plurality of slots is positioned above one of the first opening, second opening, third opening or fourth opening (see above).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses wherein the first opening second opening are each sized to accept a data wire (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses wherein the third opening and second opening are each sized to accept a power wire (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses wherein the first opening, second opening, third opening and fourth opening extend through the front wall of the plug to allow a wire in each opening to extend beyond the front wall of the plug (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses method of forming a modular plug system including the steps of: forming a housing (16) including an opening extending from a back end of the plug to an opposing front wall (16 has an opening extending from back to front); forming a plurality of slots in a top surface that extend into a cavity (slots A which extend to the open space above, see above); forming a first opening adjacent to a second opening (openings B, see above); forming a third opening adjacent to a fourth opening (openings C, see above); forming a partition separating the first opening and second opening from the third opening and fourth opening (rib between B and C), wherein at least two slots include a conductive material (wires are in the slots).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses wherein the first opening and second opening are the same size (see above).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses wherein the third opening and fourth opening are the same size (see above).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses wherein each of the plurality of slots is positioned above one of the first opening, second opening, third opening or fourth opening (see above).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses wherein the first opening second opening are each sized to accept a data wire (col. 2, ln. 23).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses wherein the third opening and second opening are each sized to accept a power wire (see Fig. 4 and col. 2, ln. 24).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses wherein the first opening, second opening, third opening and fourth opening extend through the front wall of the plug to allow a wire in each opening to extend beyond the front wall of the plug (see Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wu in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0288107 (“Wu ‘107”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wu discloses the wires 216 corresponding to openings B as smaller in diameter than the wires 212 corresponding to openings C, but does not clearly disclose that openings B have a smaller diameter than openings C. However, Wu ‘107 teaches a connector with a wire organizer 40 having openings 400 for wires of different sizes, where the openings are sized according to the size of the wire received therein (see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to make the openings of Wu sized so that the openings B are smaller than openings C because the wires in B are smaller than the wires in C, because this helps ensure that the wires are securely maintained within the openings of the wire organizer.
Claims 9 – 10 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
Regarding claims 9 – 10 and 19 – 20, Wu discloses that wires 217 can be 24 or 26 AWG and the openings for these wires accommodates these wire sizes, but Wu does not disclose the third opening and fourth opening are sized to accommodate an 18 gauge wire or larger, or the first opening and second opening are sized to accommodate a 22 gauge wire.
However, it would have been obvious to size the respective openings for wires of 18 gauge or larger, or for wires of 22 gauge, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Here, the connector is disclosed as accommodating wires of a size similar to the claimed wire sizes, and it would have been an obvious change to make the third and fourth openings sized to accommodate the wires sized as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marowsky discloses a modular plug capable of terminating wires of different sizes with a plurality of slots and an open cavity above a portion of the slots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights