DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on April 5, 2024.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 6, “handles halves” should be --handle halves--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Unlocking Tool for Unlocking a Terminal in a Connector”. The examiner reminds the applicant that this is merely a suggestion, and the applicant may provide an alternative title so long as it is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: "handles halves" should be --handle halves--;
Claim 18, line 10: "handles halves" should be --handle halves--.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-4, 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US-3110093-A).
With respect to Claim 1:
Johnson discloses an unlocking tool 10 for unlocking a terminal 46 of a connector 22 (Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a handle portion 18 having a pair of handle halves (Fig. 1: the language "handle halves" does not specify that the halves must be separate from each other as intended by the disclosure, therefore the tool 10 of Johnson can be seen as having two halves split by a longitudinal slot 20) that can be opened (Fig. 1: the rearward body portion 18 is in an opened state; the rearward body portion 18 is opened during insertion of a wire, as described in col. 3, lines 47-55: "[…] the wire may be easily slid forwardly along the tapered portion of the slot, spreading the slot apart and expanding the tool until the wire is completely encompassed by the tool […]") and closed (col. 3, lines 47-55: "[…] and then the tool will spring back to its constricted, normal condition);
a tool head 12 having a pair of tool head halves (Fig. 1), each of the tool head halves is fixed to an end of one of the handle halves (Fig. 1); and
a cable through hole axially penetrating through the handle portion 18 and the tool head 12 (Fig. 1: the tool 10 is hollow in order to accommodate a cable 58), the cable through hole is configured to accommodate a cable 58 (Figs. 2-5), the tool head halves combine to form a cylindrical tool head 12 (Fig. 1) when the handle halves are closed (Figs. 1-5), the cylindrical tool head 12 is insertable into an insertion hole 36 in the connector 22 (Figs. 3-5) to drive a terminal locking member 38 of the connector 22 to an unlocking position (Fig. 4) separate from the terminal 46 (Figs. 4-5: the tool 10 presses against the retention clip 38, expanding the spring fingers 42 to allow for removal of the terminal 46; col. 5, lines 34-49).
With respect to Claim 2:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 1.
Johnson also discloses wherein the cable 58 is positionable in the cable through hole from a side of the unlocking tool 10 when the handle halves are opened (Fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 3:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 1.
Johnson also discloses wherein the unlocking tool 10 is movable axially relative to the cable 58 when the handle halves are closed and the cable 58 is in the cable through hole (Figs. 3-5).
With respect to Claim 4:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 1.
Johnson also discloses wherein the handle halves combine to form the handle portion 18 when the handle halves are closed (Figs. 1-5), the handle portion 18 has a hollow cylindrical shape (Figs. 1-5).
With respect to Claim 9:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 1.
Johnson also discloses wherein one of the tool head halves and one of the handle head halves are formed into an integral part (Fig. 1: the tool head and the handle portion are formed into an integral part).
With respect to Claim 10:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 1.
Johnson also discloses wherein the handle halves are rotatably connected together at a first side of each of the handle halves (Fig. 1: the handle halves are connected along a longitudinal line positioned opposite to the longitudinal slot 20, and both sides may rotate relative to each other during opening and close).
With respect to Claim 18:
Johnson discloses a connector 22, comprising:
a top cover 24 having an insertion hole 36;
a terminal locking member 38 in the insertion hole 36 (Figs. 3-5);
a cable assembly including a cable 58 and a terminal 46 (Figs. 3-5), the terminal 46 is positioned in the insertion hole 36 and locked by the terminal locking member 38 (Figs. 3-5); and
an unlocking tool 10 including a handle portion 18 having a pair of handle halves (Fig. 1: the language "handle halves" does not specify that the halves must be separate from each other as intended by the disclosure, therefore the tool 10 of Johnson can be seen as having two halves split by a longitudinal slot 20) that can be opened (Fig. 1: the rearward body portion 18 is in an opened state; the rearward body portion 18 is opened during insertion of a wire, as described in col. 3, lines 47-55: "[…] the wire may be easily slid forwardly along the tapered portion of the slot, spreading the slot apart and expanding the tool until the wire is completely encompassed by the tool […]") and closed (col. 3, lines 47-55: "[…] and then the tool will spring back to its constricted, normal condition), a tool head 12 having a pair of tool head halves (Fig. 1), each of the tool head halves is fixed to an end of one of the handle halves (Fig. 1), and a cable through hole axially penetrating through the handle portion 18 and the tool head 12 (Fig. 1: the tool 10 is hollow in order to accommodate a cable 58), the cable through hole accommodates the cable 58 (Figs. 2-5), the tool head halves combine to form a cylindrical tool head 12 (Fig. 1) when the handle halves are closed (Figs. 1-5), the cylindrical tool head 12 is insertable into the insertion hole 36 (Figs. 3-5) to drive the terminal locking member 38 to an unlocking position (Fig. 4) separate from the terminal 46 (Figs. 4-5: the tool 10 presses against the retention clip 38, expanding the spring fingers 42 to allow for removal of the terminal 46; col. 5, lines 34-49).
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 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US-3110093-A) in view of Morgan (US-3789484-A).
With respect to Claim 11:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 10.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein a second side of each of the handle halves is configured to be buckled together to keep the handle halves in a closed state.
However, Pearman teaches an air hose coupling securing apparatus comprising two halves (Fig. 1), the two halves are rotatably connected together at a first side of each of the halves (Fig. 1: they are rotatably connected on the sides connected by 164 and 166), and a second side of each of the halves is configured to be buckled together to keep the halves in a closed state (Fig. 2: the halves are buckled together by 119).
Thus, Johnson and Pearman each disclose apparatuses designed to close around a tubular member. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the buckling structure of Pearman could be combined with the unlocking tool of Johnson because it would allow for the unlocking tool to be better secured on the cable without needing the user to continually squeeze the unlocking tool. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 12:
Johnson discloses the unlocking tool of claim 10.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein a pivot shaft is formed on one of the handle halves and a pivot hole is formed in the other of the handle halves, the pivot shaft engages the pivot hole.
However, Pearman teaches an air hose coupling securing apparatus comprising two halves (Fig. 1), the two halves are rotatably connected together at a first side of each of the halves (Fig. 1: they are rotatably connected on the sides connected by 164 and 166), and a pivot shaft 164 is formed on one of the handle halves (Fig. 1) and a pivot hole 166 is formed in the other of the handle halves (Fig. 1), the pivot shaft 164 engages the pivot hole 166 ([0090]).
Thus, Johnson and Pearman each disclose apparatuses designed to close around a tubular member. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the separate halves connected via a hinge mechanism comprising shell pins and shell boreholes of Pearman could be combined with the unlocking tool of Johnson because it would allow for the unlocking tool to open wider in order to accommodate a cable without bending it the way Johnson bends it in Fig. 2 of their disclosure. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 15:
Johnson in view of Pearman discloses the unlocking tool of claim 12.
Pearman also discloses wherein the one of the handle halves has a tongue portion 168 (Fig. 5), the pivot shaft 164 is formed on a pair of sides of the tongue portion 168 (the shell pin 164 passes through the interlocking projections 168, forming on both sides of the interlocking projections 168).
With respect to Claim 16:
Johnson in view of Pearman discloses the unlocking tool of claim 15.
Pearman also discloses wherein a notch (Fig. 6: the spaces between 168) is formed on the other of the handle halves (Fig. 6), the pivot hole 166 is formed on a pair of sides of the notch, the tongue portion 168 is positioned in the notch (Figs. 5-6: when the halves are joined, the tongue portions 168 of the half shown in Fig. 5 are positioned in the aforementioned notches of the half shown in Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-14 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein an end of one of the tool head halves is inserted and bonded to the end of one of the handle halves,” as recited in claim 5, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 5. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 5, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claims 6-7 are dependent on claim 5 and would therefore be allowable.
Regarding Claim 8, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein one of the handle halves is over molded on one of the tool head halves to fix an end of the one of the tool head halves into the end of the one of the handle halves,” as recited in claim 8, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 8. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 8, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 13, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the pivot hole has a side opening, a size of the side opening is less than a diameter of the pivot hole and the pivot hole has a C-shaped cross-section,” as recited in claim 13, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 13. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 13, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and would therefore be allowable.
Regarding Claim 17, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein one of the handle halves has a groove and the other of the handle halves has a convex rib, the convex rib engages the groove to buckle the handle halves together,” as recited in claim 17, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 17. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 17, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 EST..
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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights