DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities.
In re pages 12, 13, and 15: “Seeger” in lines 34, 7 and 14, and 18, respectively, should be replaced with –Seeger®– since Seeger is a registered trademark owned by Seeger-Orbis GmbH & Co. OHG. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 10-16 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 4: the claim would be in better form if “in the shape of a neck” were deleted.
In re claim 6: there is no antecedent basis for “the central apex segment”. The examiner suggests deleting “central”.
In re claim 10: “dieless” should be –dieless–.
In re claim 11: “the recesses” in line 14 should be –the plurality of recesses–.
In re claim 12: “the recesses” should be –the plurality of recesses–.
In re claim 13: “the width” should be –a width–; and “the recesses” should be –the plurality of recesses–; delete “width” from “the width recess”.
In re claim 14: “the recesses” should be –the plurality of recesses–.
In re claim 15: each instance of “the recesses” should be –the plurality of recesses–; and “the range” should be –a range–.
In re claim 16: “the recesses” should be –the plurality of recesses–.
In re claim 18: “all recesses” should be –all of the plurality of recesses–.
In re claim 19: the claim would be in better form if “directly” were deleted; and “dieless” should be –dieless–.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes the use of “simple curvature” in claim 5. Generally, “simple” is relative and/or subjective term that renders the scope of the claim unclear. However, in mathematics, a simple curve is a continuous path that does not cross or intersect itself. It can have straight lines, sharp corners, or smooth bends, but the path is entirely non-self-intersecting. Simple curves fall into two main categories: open and closed. This is the interpretation being given to the phrase “simple curvature” in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 1-22 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 regards as the invention. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claim 1: “a longitudinal extension arched in a hypothetical arc plane orthogonal to an insertion direction of the object into the abutment seat” renders the claim indefinite because a plane in mathematics is a flat, two-dimensional surface. The examiner suggests replacing said limitation with –a longitudinal extension arched in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction of the object into the abutment seat–. Corresponding amendments to claims 2, 5 and 9 are also required.
It is unclear what type of neck the phrase “a shape of a neck” is referring to. Is it a human neck or a neck of a particular animal. Claim 4 also contains the issue.
In re claim 8: “minor base” renders the claim indefinite since “minor” is a relative and/or subjective term and metes/bounds for the term have not been set forth.
In re claim 11: it is unclear if “and having” in line 9 is referring to the lateral portion or the plurality of recesses. It is being interpreted as the plurality of recesses.
In re claim 20: it is unclear what is meant by “the abutment surface makes, in the object, two abutment impressions spaced apart from each other and tapered towards each other, or trapezoidal; the punch surface makes, in the object, a compression impression in a shape of a circumferentially wavy cavity converging towards a central point-shaped bottom from which petal-shaped radial impressions extend” since no particular structure of the abutment surface is set forth that performs the claimed functions. The examiner suggests replacing said recitations with, for example:
–the abutment surface comprising two abutment projections spaced apart from each other and tapered towards each other, or trapezoidal; the two abutment projections are configured to make two abutment projections in the object;
the punch surface comprising a circumferentially wavy projection converging towards a central point-shaped top from which petal-shaped radial projections extend, the petal-shaped radial projections are configured to make a circumferentially wavy impression in the object–.
In re claim 21: the contains the trademark/trade name Seeger. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a retaining ring and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
In re claim 22: the claim recites “A hydrodynamic compression tool comprising a work head according to claim 1.” This can be interpreted as a hydrodynamic compression tool is a work head according to claim 1 since “comprising” does not require that any additional features exist. And, the work head of claim 1 does not include any structure that makes it hydrodynamic. The claim is indefinite for at least these reasons.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that forms 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 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goede et al. (US 2018/0175575).
In re claims 1 and 22: Goede et al. (US 2018/0175575) discloses a work head for or of a compression tool, comprising:
an abutment jaw 30 forming an abutment seat (the larger one of the recesses having work surface 36) for accommodating an object to be compressed (fig. 2); and
a compression jaw 20 movable with respect to the abutment jaw 30 to perform compression of the object positioned in the abutment seat 36 between the abutment jaw 30 and the compression jaw 20;
wherein the abutment seat 36 forms an arched abutment surface (fig. 2-3) having:
a longitudinal extension arched in a hypothetical arc plane orthogonal to an insertion direction of the object into the abutment seat 36 (the insertion direction is into and out of the page as viewed in fig. 2), wherein the longitudinal extension has a first side segment, a second side segment opposite to the first side segment, and an apex segment in a shape of a neck extending between the first side segment and the second side segment (see annotated fig. 4 below and fig. 3 of Goede),
PNG
media_image1.png
302
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Goede
an abutment width measurable in the insertion direction and orthogonal to the arc plane,
wherein the abutment width decreases from a first base width of the first side segment to an apex width of the apex segment, and wherein the abutment width decreases from a second base width of the second side segment to the apex width of the apex segment (see annotated fig. 10 of Goede below).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10 of Goede
Because claim 22 does not positively recite any structure additional to that in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 reads on claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frenken (US 2015/0364889), in view of Goede et al. (US 2018/0175575).
In re claim 1: Frenken discloses a work head for or of a compression/crimping tool, comprising:
an abutment jaw 9 forming an abutment seat 7 for accommodating an object to be compressed (fig. 3); and
a compression jaw 6 movable with respect to the abutment jaw 9 to perform compression of the object positioned in the abutment seat 7 between the abutment jaw 9 and the compression jaw 6;
wherein the abutment seat forms an arched abutment surface (fig. 3) having:
a longitudinal extension arched in a hypothetical arc plane orthogonal to an insertion direction of the object into the abutment seat 7 (the insertion direction is into and out of the page as viewed in fig. 3), wherein the longitudinal extension has a first side segment (see annotated fig. 3 of Frenken below), a second side segment opposite to the first side segment, and an apex segment in a shape of a neck extending between the first side segment and the second side segment (fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
320
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Frenken
an abutment width measurable in the insertion direction and orthogonal to the arc plane (see fig. 4, particularly, the width of the abutment jaw that abuts the object 29 to be compressed).
Frenken does not explicitly disclose the abutment width decreases from a first base width of the first side segment to an apex width of the apex segment, and wherein the abutment width decreases from a second base width of the second side segment to the apex width of the apex segment.
Goede teaches a work head (fig. 2-3, 10) for a compression/crimping tool (abstract) comprising an abutment jaw 30 including an abutment seat 36 forming an arched abutment surface having an abutment width measurable in an insertion direction of an object to be compressed and orthogonal to an arc plane in which a longitudinal extension of the abutment seat 36 extends, wherein the abutment width decreases from a first base width of a first side segment to an apex width of an apex segment, and wherein the abutment width decreases from a second base width of a second side segment to the apex width of the apex segment (see annotated fig. 10 of Goede below).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10 of Goede
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frenken’s abutment seat in the claimed manner, as taught by Goede, because selecting from known configurations of abutment widths allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that any future amendments made to the claim for further limiting the structure of the abutment jaw would be considered obvious under “changes in shape” and/or “changes in size/proportion” rationales in accordance with MPEP § 2144.04 subsections IV.A, B. This is because even though the specification (see pg. 7) states reasons for the claimed configuration of the abutment seat in so far as it provides a few different functions, the ordinary artisan would readily envisage configurations of the abutment jaw of modified Frenken that would inherently provide those same functions when such changes in shape, size, or proportion are applied.
Because claim 22 does not positively recite any structure additional to that in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 reads on claim 22.
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the first side segment and the second side segment are mutually inclined, in a sectional view in the arc plane (see fig. 10 above), so that at the first and second opposite side segments and moving away from the apex segment, the abutment surface enlarges both in the insertion direction and in a span direction (see fig. 10 above and fig. 3 of Goede).
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the abutment seat has an arched "V" shape, wherein the first side segment and the second side segment are rectilinear (see fig. 3 of Frenken).
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the apex segment in the shape of a neck is arched without corners, or in a shape of an arc of a circle or in a shape of a catenary (see fig. 3 of Frenken), and is joined, without corners, to the first side segment and the second side segment (as taught by Goede in fig. 2-3).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the abutment surface (of abutment seat 7) has a simple curvature only in the arc plane and is rectilinear in the insertion direction (see fig. 3 of Frenken).
In re claim 6, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the abutment surface is strip shaped, a width of which, in the insertion direction, is gradually tapered from two base ends of the side segments towards the apex segment (see fig. 10 of Goede above).
In re claim 7, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches at the first side segment and the second side segment, the abutment surface is trapezoidal with a shorter base at the apex segment (see fig. 10 of Goede above).
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches an abutment width reduction in and towards the apex segment comprises a localized thickness reduction of the abutment jaw in a radial direction from an abutment jaw extrados towards an intrados of the abutment jaw forming the abutment seat (see fig. 10 above and fig. 3 of Goede).
Modified Frenken does not explicitly teach that at the apex segment, the abutment surface is formed by a minor base of an abutment portion of the abutment jaw having a trapezoidal cross-section.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frenken in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely changing the shape, size, or proportion of features taught in the prior art is a matter of design or engineering choice which the ordinary artisan would have found obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 subsections IV.A, B).
The specification states that the claimed configuration “makes two abutment impressions 18 in the object 5 (Figure 15), mutually spaced apart and tapered towards each other, which have proven to be advantageous in terms of mechanical resistance of crimped electrical connectors.” Nevertheless, said proof has not been provided.
In re claim 9, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the abutment seat is symmetrical to a plane of symmetry orthogonal to the arc plane and parallel to a compression axis oriented in a movement direction of the compression jaw with respect to the abutment jaw (see fig. 3 of Frenken, and fig. 10 above and fig. 3 of Goede).
In re claim 10, which depends on claim 1: modified Frenken teaches the abutment seat 7 is made in one piece with a base body of the abutment jaw 9, to make a dieless abutment jaw (fig. 3 of Frenken).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Netta (US 3,919,877) teaches a work head for a compression tool (fig. 1 and col. 1, ln. 24-28) comprising a reversible mechanical connection including a first connection groove 48 (fig. 6) extending along a circumference segment of a compression jaw in a connection plane orthogonal to a connection axis and open in a radial direction with respect to the connection axis (fig. 6); a second connection groove 48 extending along a circumference segment of a piston 30 and positioned to lie in a same connection plane and to be open in a same radial direction with respect to the connection axis and directly facing the first connection groove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12-19 are only indicated as allowable subject matter due to their dependence on claim 11.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re claim 11, the cited prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious in any proper combination a compression jaw forming a punch surface and comprising “a longitudinal extension along a direction from the central apex portion to the base” when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 11.
In re claim 21, the cited prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious in any proper combination a compression jaw forming a punch surface and comprising “a Seeger [retaining] ring positioned in an engagement configuration between the compression jaw and the piston and extending in both the first connection groove and the second connection groove to prevent the compression jaw from detaching from the piston along the connection axis” when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights