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 .
35 USC 103 Rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennauer 11,342,709 in view of DE 102013111506.
Regarding claim 1, Brennauer (Figure 2a and 3) substantially discloses a plug connector, comprising: a housing 3; and a locking system arranged on the housing, the locking system has an actuating lever 210 and a locking lever 23, the locking lever has a latching element 2101, the actuating lever and the locking lever are connected to one another at a first end of the locking lever, the locking lever is a bending ban that creates a spring force in a direction of the housing, the locking lever extends to a second end along a plug-in direction from the housing, the actuating lever is connected to the housing by a supporting web 22 and projects beyond the supporting web in a direction opposite the plug-in direction. DE ‘506 (Figure 1) discloses the supporting web (unnumbered, attached to 10) having a first end connected to the housing 3 and a second end connected to the actuating lever 5, the supporting web extending perpendicular to the plug-in direction from the first end to the second end, and to form the supporting web of Brennauer as extending perpendicularly from the housing thus would have been obvious, for greater strength.
Regarding claim 2, Brennauer discloses the latching element 2101 is a latching lug arranged at the second end of the locking lever 23.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation to arrange the supporting web 22 of Brennauer on the housing 3 at a point at which the locking lever 23 extends from the housing.
Regarding claim 5, Brennauer discloses a travel limiter 2102 arranged at an end of the locking
system opposite the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 6, Brennauer discloses the travel limiter 2102 is positioned at a distance from
the supporting web 22.
Regarding claim 7, Brennauer discloses the travel limiter 2102 includes a bulge on an inside of
the actuating lever 210.
Regarding claim 8, Brennauer discloses the travel limiter includes a structure on the housing 3.
Regarding claim 9, Brennauer discloses the travel limiter includes a structure on the housing 3
that is complementary to the bulge 2102.
Regarding claim 10, Brennauer discloses the actuating lever 210 has an actuating area (near
2102) at an end opposite the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 11, Brennauer discloses the actuating area is widened outward.
Regarding claim 12, Brennauer discloses the actuating arca has a structured actuating surface
(unnumbered ribs) on an outside of the actuating lever 210.
Regarding claim 13, Brennauer discloses the housing 3 has an outwardly widened area that
widens the housing perpendicular to the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 14, Brennauer discloses the locking lever 23 extends from the outwardly
widened area.
Regarding claim 15, Brennauer discloses the latching lug 2101 has an undercut and projects
from the locking lever 23 in a direction of the housing 3 perpendicular to the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 16, Brennauer discloses the latching lug 2101 has a chamfer (unnumbered)
formed in the plug-in direction.
Regarding claim 17, Brennauer discloses the actuating lever 210 is bent outwards starting from
the outwardly widened area.
Regarding claim 18, Brennauer discloses a connector strip having a connector housing 60.
Brennauer is further applied as above.
Regarding claim 20, Brennauer discloses the plug housing 3 has a width that is less than or equal to a width of the connector housing 60.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Brennauer is applied as above. DE ‘506 (Figure 1) discloses a width of the connector 1 at a first end (upper right) of the actuating lever opposite the plug-in direction being less than or equal to a width of the connector in an area where the actuating lever 7 joins the supporting web, and to form the connector of Brennauer in this way thus would have been obvious, to optimize the function of the actuating lever.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GARY F PAUMEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2013. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th.
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 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 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.
/GARY F PAUMEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights