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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 13, the limitation “plurality of blades electrically connected to the plug-in contact element” is unclear. How the blades and the plug-in contact element are electrically connected while they are actually a one-piece structure of the plug-in contact?
Claims 1, 11 and 13, the limitation “a first pair of spring element arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a first side of the receiving direction and a second pair of spring elements arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a second side of the receiving direction.” is unclear.
The examiner interprets as “a first pair of spring element arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a first side of the receiving region and a second pair of spring elements arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a second side of the receiving region.” for examination.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappoehn (US 2017/0331207) in view of Miura et al. (US 2013/0137285).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lappoehn discloses a plug-in connector, comprising:
a first housing part (100) having a plug-in contact element (105) and a plurality of blades (110, 115) electrically connected to the plug-in contact element; and
a second housing part (200) having a receiving region (222) with a receiving direction.
Lappoehn substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the first and second pair of spring elements arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a first and second side of the receiving region.
Miura et al. teach spring elements (106, 106) on each side of receiving region.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the spring elements into Lappoehn’s receiving region, as taught by Miura et al. for centralizing and retaining the flexible cable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the spring element to be pair of spring elements for increasing holding force, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn discloses the first housing part and the second housing part are pushed into one another.
Regarding claim 3, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn disclose a conductor film (300) having a plurality of film-insulated conductors is received in the receiving region along the receiving direction.
Regarding claim 4, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn discloses the receiving region has a stop for the conductor film opposite a receiving opening for the conductor film.
[AltContent: textbox (opening)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (stop)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
302
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn discloses the second housing part has an opening through which the stop is visible.
Regarding claim 6, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. disclose each of the spring elements in the first pair of spring elements and the second pair of spring elements has a spring arm arranged essentially parallel to the receiving direction.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (spring arm)]
PNG
media_image2.png
93
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Positioning element)]
Regarding claim 7, in the modified plug-in connector of claim 6, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. disclose each of the spring elements in the first pair of spring elements and the second pair of spring elements has a positioning element projecting from the spring arm orthogonally to the receiving direction into the receiving region.
Regarding claim 8, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. disclose the spring arm and the positioning element are formed in a single piece.
Regarding claim 9, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. disclose the spring arm and the positioning element are formed of a plastic material.
Regarding claim 10, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. the first pair of spring elements and the second pair of spring elements are formed in a single piece with the second housing part.
Regarding claims 11-12, the method claims are deemed inherence by Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. for producing a plug-in connector, comprising: providing a first housing part having a plug-in contact element and a plurality of blades electrically connected to the plug-in contact element; and casting a second housing part in a mold, the second housing part having a receiving region with a receiving direction, a first pair of spring elements arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a first side of the receiving direction, and a second pair of spring elements arranged resiliently in the receiving region on a second side of the receiving direction;
wherein the first pair of spring elements and the second pair of spring elements are not formed at an end of a filling of the mold with a casting compound.
Regarding claim 14, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn disclose a conductor film (300) having a plurality of film-insulated conductors, the conductor film is insertable into the receiving region along the receiving direction.
Regarding claim 15, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. disclose one of the first pair of spring elements presses against a first side of the conductor film and at least one of the second pair of spring elements presses against a second side of the conductor film opposite the first side.
Regarding claim 16, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. the conductor film is centered in the receiving region by the first pair of the spring elements and the second pair of spring elements.
Regarding claim 17, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. the first housing part and the second housing part are pushed into one another to electrically connect the plug-in contact element with the film-insulated conductors.
Regarding claim 18, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. all of the blades electrically contact one of the film-insulated conductors.
Regarding claim 19, in the modified plug-in connector, Lappoehn in view of Miura et al. the conductor film is guiding through a receiving opening into the receiving region and hits a stop opposite the receiving opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2011. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday (7-4).
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, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TRUC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights