DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the device as claimed including that the normal fitting region is straight was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. US 7416425 (“Murakami”) in view of Miyamoto US 7670157.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses a connector comprising:
a housing (12, 13) that holds a terminal 50 and is fitted to a mating connector 41;
a lever 17 that is rotatably attached to the housing, rotates about a rotation center (at 120) and forms a cam groove 28 extending obliquely with respect to a rotation direction; and
a biasing unit (16) that is provided in the housing and biases the lever (via the housing 13) in a direction that is away from the mating connector, wherein
the cam groove is provided such that a cam follower 46 provided in the mating connector is to be inserted through the cam groove, the cam groove being formed by connecting a half-fitting region (labeled HFR in annotated figure 9 below) and a normal fitting region (labeled NFR below) connected to the half fitting region, and a boundary position (labeled BP/PRT) that overlaps each of the half fitting region and the normal fitting region,
the half-fitting region is a region in which the cam follower is located in a half-fitting state, the half fitting region includes an inlet position (labeled INP), and the half fitting region curves toward the rotation center of the lever from an inlet position (labeled INP below) the normal fitting region is a region in which the cam follower is located in a normal fitting state with the mating connector.
The cam follower is pressed by an inner surface of the normal fitting region in a direction away from the mating connector by biasing of the biasing unit and held at the fitting end position in the normal fitting state.
The Murakami normal fitting region is not clearly shown to be extending away from the boundary position, see figures 2 and 9.
Miyamoto discloses a connector including 70 including cam groove 77 for camming cam follower 14, where the groove includes half fitting region (labeled HFR in annotated figure 4 below), a normal fitting region (labeled NFR below), a boundary position (labeled “BP / Protrusion” below) separating the normal and half fitting regions.
The normal fitting region is a region in which the cam follower is located in a normal fitting state with the mating connector.
The normal fitting region extends away from the boundary position in a direction that is away from the rotation center position.
In particular, the direction of the cam groove, labeled “Groove Direction” below, defined by the direction of the walls of the groove, extends away from the rotation center position (labeled CR below) in the NFR region beyond the boundary/peak of the groove sidewall.
It would have been obvious to likewise form the groove of the Murakami as taught in Miyamoto, where the direction of the groove in the NFR section is away from the center of rotation as taught in Miyamoto. The reason would have been that such configuration will ensure that once the cam follower has past the BP/Peak of the cam groove during mating of the connectors, the biasing member will be biasing the lever and mating connectors into locked position rather than biasing the lever and connectors into a disengaged position. The configuration further ensures that a force pulling apart the mated connectors will bias the locking lever into the locked position rather than biasing the lever to rotate in the unlocking direction as would be the case if the cam groove extended toward the center of rotation.
PNG
media_image1.png
1058
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1224
996
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, the cam groove in Miyamoto forms a protrusion (labeled Protrusion or BP above) in that protrudes toward the rotation center position on a side surface at the boundary position between the half-fitting region and the normal fitting region. Likewise the cam groove in Murakami appears to show a protrusion (labeled PRT above), albeit ambiguously.
Per claim 3, the Murakami housing includes an inner housing 13 that holds the terminal and an outer housing 12 provided outside the inner housing, the outer housing is attached to the inner housing so as to be movable along a connection direction with the mating connector, and the biasing unit is provided between the inner housing and the outer housing and applies a reaction force to the inner housing to bias the outer housing and the lever to the opposite side of the mating connector.
Per claim 4 the housing includes an inner housing that holds the terminal and an outer housing provided outside the inner housing, the outer housing is attached to the inner housing so as to be movable along a connection direction with the mating connector, and the biasing unit is provided between the inner housing and the outer housing and applies a reaction force to the inner housing to bias the outer housing and the lever to the opposite side of the mating connector.
Per claim 5, as shown at the portion labeled “Groove Direction” above, the normal fitting region as taught in Miyamoto is “straight” in the sense that a portion of the wall of the groove is straight in the normal fitting region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Regarding dependent claim 2, applicant argues that Murakami does not disclose a protrusion. As noted above regarding claim 1, regardless of whether the a protrusion is clearly shown in Murakami, it would have been obvious to form the groove of the Murakami as taught in Miyamoto, where the direction of the groove in the NFR section is away from the center of rotation as taught in Miyamoto. This would inherently form a protrusion as claimed in claim 2.
Applicant argues that Miyamoto does not discuss the function of the protrusion (which is claimed in dependent claim 2). The function of the protrusion is both inherent the operation of the device and the function would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The function of the protrusion is both inherent in the operation of the device and the function of the protrusion would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. There is no reason to form the protrusion in the cam groove other than to prevent the lever from rotating in the release direction when the mating connectors are pulled (or pushed by a biasing member) away from each other. The protrusion inherently functions to prevent unwanted de-mating of the connectors and that function is inherent and would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues Miyamoto fails to disclose the utility of the protrusion. As set out above, the utility of the configuration of the groove is inherent and would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art without need for explicit explanation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROSS N GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler, can be reached at (571)272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights