DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a threaded hub including a plurality of teeth and a trough between each tooth . . .” is indefinite. The entire specification suggests and states that the “threaded hub 130” and “threaded housing 120” are threaded, implying that the housing and hub each have a single continuous thread that mate with each other. In contradiction, the specification discloses “a threaded hub including a plurality of teeth and a trough between each tooth of the plurality of teeth” see e.g., ¶ 0044. Apparently, and ambiguously, applicant is identifying a single continuous thread as a “plurality of teeth” and a plurality of troughs between each of the plurality of teeth. The figures appear to disclose a continuous thread, in contradiction to a “plurality of teeth.” There is no clear explanation of what is meant by the “plurality of teeth” in the specification. The limitations regarding pluralities of teeth and/or pluralities of troughs are given little weight given that the disclosure seems to suggest that there are single continuous mating threads somewhat more than suggesting plural teeth and troughs.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Youtsey US 10855003 in view of Miklya US 3436105 and Kies et al. US 6050766 (“Kies”).
Regarding claim 1, Youtsey discloses a retention system for an electrical connection, the retention system comprising:
a threaded housing (105, 112) having a housing wall (e.g., at 106), the threaded housing including:
an opening (labeled OP in annotated figure 1A below), defined by the housing wall, at a first end of the threaded housing.
Youtsey does not disclose a vise anchor extending through engagement recesses in the threaded housing.
Miklya disclose retention system for an electrical connection, the retention system
comprising:
a housing 12 (analogous to Youtsey housing at 105, in particular analogous to the Youtsey cylindrical surface 106) having a housing wall, the housing including: an opening, defined by the housing wall, at a first end of the threaded housing; and
one or more engagement recesses 18 extending through a portion of the
housing wall; and
a vise anchor 20 including two or more jaws (labeled JW1 and JW2 in annotated figure 2 below) interconnected by a bridge (labeled BRG), each jaw including an
engagement portion 22 at an end portion;
wherein the engagement portion is configured to extend through the one or more engagement recesses; wherein the engagement portion is configured to be received in the trough of a thread.
It would have been obvious to provide the Miklya housing at surface 106 with recesses as taught in Youtsey at 18 and provide a vice anchor as taught in Miklya 20 to engage the mating interior cylindrical hub through the recesses as taught in Youtsey. The reason would have been to better secure the mating components together as taught in Youtsey.
Consequently, in a rotation configuration, the threaded hub is configured to be
rotatably received within the threaded housing; and in an anchored configuration, the vise anchor is statically coupled with the threaded housing and each jaw is configured to maintain retention of the threaded hub received within the threaded housing.
To the extent that Miklya does not disclose specifically that protrusions (Miklya at 22) are sized to properly engage the threads of the hub, Kies discloses a vice anchor 12 where the protrusions (70, 69) are specifically sized to engage with the underlying threads of the mating body 20, see figure 6 and col. 4, lines 30-35. Likewise, it would have been obvious to size the width of the vice anchor protrusions (Miklya at 22) to mesh in the thread trough of the Youtsey hub 120 threads 122. The reason would have been to ensure that vice anchor and underlying mating component (hub 120) threads are well engaged, as taught in Kies.
PNG
media_image1.png
1300
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1186
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, the Youtsey housing wall (at 106) includes an internal threaded surface configured to mate with the threaded hub.
Per claim 3, Youtsey discloses a junction portion (Youtsey at 112) on a second side of the threaded housing from the opening; wherein the Youtsey threaded housing is coupled with an electrical cable 104 at the junction portion.
Per claim 4, the Youtsey threaded hub 120 is a threaded shaft including a complementary thread with the threaded housing.
Per claim 5, the Miklya bridge includes an arcuate profile complementary to perimeter surface of the Miklya housing 12. It would have been obvious to like shape the vice anchor bridge to fit complementary on the Youtsey housing at 106, as a matter of engineering design choice.
Per claim 6 the Youtsey retention system is a grounding path.
Per claim 7 the vise anchor (as taught in Miklya) is a clip.
Regarding claim 8, Youtsey discloses a connection apparatus for a threaded electrical coupling, the connection apparatus comprising:
a threaded housing (105, 112) having a first end portion and a second end portion, the
threaded housing including:
a wall (at 106) defining an opening (labeled OP above) at the first end portion;
wherein the opening is configured to receive a threaded coupling; and
a junction portion 113 at the second end portion, the junction portion
coupled with an electrical cable 104; and
Youtsey does not disclose a vise anchor extending through engagement recesses in the threaded housing.
Miklya disclose retention system for an electrical connection, the retention system
comprising:
a housing 12 (analogous to Youtsey housing at 105, in particular analogous to the Youtsey cylindrical surface 106) having a housing wall, the housing including: an opening, defined by the housing wall, at a first end of the threaded housing; and
one or more engagement recesses 18 extending through a portion of the
housing wall; and
a vise anchor 20 including two or more jaws (labeled JW1 and JW2 in annotated figure 2 below) interconnected by a bridge (labeled BRG), each jaw including an
engagement portion 22 at an end portion;
wherein the engagement portion is configured to extend through the one or more engagement recesses; wherein the engagement portion is configured to be received in the trough of a thread.
It would have been obvious to provide the Miklya housing at surface 106 with recesses as taught in Youtsey at 18 and provide a vice anchor as taught in Miklya 20 to engage the mating interior cylindrical hub through the recesses as taught in Youtsey. The reason would have been to better secure the mating components together as taught in Youtsey.
Consequently, in a rotation configuration, the threaded hub is configured to be
rotatably received within the threaded housing; and in an anchored configuration, the vise anchor is statically coupled with the threaded housing and each jaw is configured to maintain retention of the threaded hub received within the threaded housing.
To the extent that Miklya does not disclose specifically that protrusions (Miklya at 22) are sized to properly engage the threads of the hub, Kies discloses a vice anchor 12 where the protrusions (70, 69) are specifically sized to engage with the underlying threads of the mating body 20, see figure 6 and col. 4, lines 30-35. Likewise, it would have been obvious to size the width of the vice anchor protrusions (Miklya at 22) to mesh in the thread trough of the Youtsey hub 120 threads 122. The reason would have been to ensure that vice anchor and underlying mating component (hub 120) threads are well engaged, as taught in Kies.
Per claim 9 the Youtsey wall includes a threaded interior surface.
Per claim 10 each Miklya engagement portion includes a lobe (i.e., the protrusion extends radially inwardly), the lobe configured to extend through one of the one or more engagement recesses.
Per claim 11 the Miklya vise anchor includes an arcuate bridge extending between each jaw; wherein the arcuate bridge is configured to extend around a perimeter
surface of the wall.
Per claim 12 the threaded housing is configured to mate with an opposing threaded electrical shaft.
Per claim 13, as set out regarding claim 8, the engagement portion is configured to fit within a trough of the threaded electrical shaft; wherein in an anchored configuration, the vise anchor is statically coupled with the threaded housing and each jaw is configured to maintain retention of the threaded electrical shaft received within the threaded housing.
Regarding claim 14, the Youtsey threaded housing is a radio frequency (RF) connector (col. 1, lines 45-65).
Per claim 15 the Youtsey connection apparatus is coupled with a coaxial cable system. To the extent that Youtsey does not specify that the coaxial cable system is a component of an aerospace, aviation, automotive or aquatic device, the examiner takes Official notice that such systems were known in the art. It would have been obvious to use the Youtsey system, as modified above, in various suitable systems as a matter of engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Youtsey discloses a method of retaining a threaded connection between two threaded components of an electrical system, the method including:
inserting a threaded hub 120 into a threaded housing (105, 112), the threaded housing
including an opening defined by a threaded housing wall;
rotating the threaded hub into the threaded housing.
Youtsey does not disclose a vise anchor extending through engagement recesses in the threaded housing.
Miklya disclose retention system for an electrical connection, the retention system
comprising:
a housing 12 (analogous to Youtsey housing at 105, in particular analogous to the Youtsey cylindrical surface 106) having a housing wall, the housing including: an opening, defined by the housing wall, at a first end of the threaded housing; and
one or more engagement recesses 18 extending through a portion of the
housing wall; and
a vise anchor 20 including two or more jaws (labeled JW1 and JW2 in annotated figure 2 below) interconnected by a bridge (labeled BRG), each jaw including an
engagement portion 22 at an end portion;
wherein the engagement portion is configured to extend through the one or more engagement recesses; wherein the engagement portion is configured to be received in the trough of a thread.
It would have been obvious to provide the Miklya housing at surface 106 with recesses as taught in Youtsey at 18 and provide a vice anchor as taught in Miklya 20 to engage the mating interior cylindrical hub through the recesses as taught in Youtsey. The reason would have been to better secure the mating components together as taught in Youtsey.
Consequently, in a rotation configuration, the threaded hub is configured to be
rotatably received within the threaded housing; and in an anchored configuration, the vise anchor is statically coupled with the threaded housing and each jaw is configured to maintain retention of the threaded hub received within the threaded housing.
To the extent that Miklya does not disclose specifically that protrusions (Miklya at 22) are sized to properly engage the threads of the hub, Kies discloses a vice anchor 12 where the protrusions (70, 69) are specifically sized to engage with the underlying threads of the mating body 20, see figure 6 and col. 4, lines 30-35. Likewise, it would have been obvious to size the width of the vice anchor protrusions (Miklya at 22) to mesh in the thread trough of the Youtsey hub 120 threads 122. The reason would have been to ensure that vice anchor and underlying mating component (hub 120) threads are well engaged, as taught in Kies.
Given such a modification the steps of coupling a vise anchor, including a first jaw and a second jaw, with the threaded housing, coupling includes: aligning the first jaw with one engagement recess and aligning the second jaw with another engagement recess; and
inserting the first jaw through the first engagement recess and the second jaw through the second engagement recess; receiving the first jaw and the second jaw in a trough of the threaded hub; and clasping the threaded hub between the first jaw and the second jaw would have been obvious to use the device as intended and secure the mating parts together.
Per claim 17 the threaded housing is one of a male connector or female connector of the electrical system.
Per claim 18 each of the first jaw and the second jaw includes a lobe (Miklya at the radially inwardly extending protrusion 22). As such the method including inserting the lobe through one of the first engagement recess and the second engagement recess; and
statically retaining the threaded hub relative to the threaded housing would have been obvious.
Per claim 19, given the device as set out above, providing an additional grounding path with the vise anchor would have been obvious if not inherent.
Per claim 20 the Miklya vise anchor is a clip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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