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 § 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, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tonosaki (7,959,451).
Regarding claim 1, Tonosaki discloses a lever connector (10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a housing (12, Fig. 2); and
a lever (30, Fig. 2) attached to the housing in a displaceable manner and configured to attract a mating connector (60) by being displaced from a first position (Figs. 3 and 4) to a second position (Figs. 5 and 6) relative to the housing,
wherein the housing has a through-hole (17, Fig. 2) for passing a cam pin (63, Fig. 4) of the mating connector through a cam groove (43, Fig. 3) formed in an arm (32, Fig. 3) of the lever,
the lever is movable from the second position to a third position (Figs. 7 and 8) after moving from the first position to the second position relative to the housing, and has a protrusion (FIGURE A below (from Fig. 8)) protruding from an outer surface (FIGUR A below) of the arm (32), and
the protrusion is located further toward the mating connector when the lever is at the third position than when the lever is at the second position, and blocks the through-hole when the lever is at the third position (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, an electric wire cover (21, Fig. 5) attached to the housing, wherein the electric wire cover has a cover face covering an electric wire pullout face of the housing, and the lever blocks a gap formed in the cover face when the lever is at the third position.
Regarding claim 4, a guide (18, Fig. 3) for guiding the movement from the second position to the third position.
Regarding claim 6, the lever rotates from the first position (Fig. 4) to the second position (Fig. 6) such that the protrusion faces the mating connector when the lever is at the second position, and the lever moves toward the mating connector from the second position to the third position such that the protrusion is located further toward the mating connector when the lever is at the third position (Fig. 8) than when the lever is at the second position (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, the housing has an outer wall (pointed at 12, Fig. 2) and a protruding wall (FIUGRE B below (from Fig. 2)) protruding from a lower end of the outer wall, the through-hole is defined in the protruding wall and extends in a vertical direction, and a through-groove (FIGURE B below) communicating with the through-hole is defined in the outer wall and extends in an inward-outward direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
191
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonosaki in view of Takata (6,447,312).
Regarding claim 5, Tonosaki discloses the claimed invention as described above except for a metal case to which the mating connector is to be fixed, the case has a tubular portion configured to cover an outer face of the mating hood (or mating housing).
Takata, Fig. 1 shows a case (10) to which the mating connector is to be fixed and the case has a tubular portion (not labeled) configured to cover an outer face of the mating hood (or mating housing). It would have been obvious to provide Tonosaki to have the case, as taught by Takata for better connection.
It would have been obvious to modify Tonodaki and Takata to have the case is a metal case, since 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 for better connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-7 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 THANH TAM T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2094. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abdul 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.
/THANH TAM T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 09/04/26
thanh-tam.le@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights