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 2 & 7 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the fastener tab" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant should provide proper antecedent basis for this limitations in order to provide the claim with clarity.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the fastener tabs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant should provide proper antecedent basis for this limitations in order to provide the claim with clarity.
Treatment of Claims
The examiner assumes that the label carrier of claim 1 comprises a flat profile in part, wherein the flat profile comprises a fastener tab.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al (Pat Num 5,187,887, herein referred to Mori). Mori discloses a method of attaching a label carrier (Figs 1-26) which is easily and readily inserted in between the lugs (Col 1, lines 47-57). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Mori discloses a method for attaching a label carrier (H) to an insulating sheath (located at D) of an electrically conductive wire (D), the method comprising providing a label carrier (H) formed of an elongated strip of elastically expandable material (Col 4, line 49-51), wherein the label carrier (H) has a flat profile (1) in part (Fig 1), wherein the flat profile (1) of the label carrier (H) comprises a fastener tab (1a) and wherein at one end of the label carrier (H), the flat profile (1) gradually merges into two wings (2, 2), which form a channel (5) with an longitudinal slot (4) between the two wings (3, 2), inserting a wire (D) through the slot (4) and into the channel (5) formed by the wings (2, 2, as shown in Fig 15F), wherein the wire (D) is held by friction between the wings (2, 2, Col 2, lines 28-52). With respect to claim 2, Mori discloses that the flat profile (1) at one end comprises a fastener tab (1a) that may be formed of a thermoplastic (i.e. polypropylene, Col 4, lines 49-51). With respect to claim 7, Mori discloses a method, wherein a plurality of label carriers (H) are oriented parallel to one another and are connected by at least one connecting strip (6) to form an endless belt (Col 4, lines 64-68), wherein the endless belt (Figs 2) is fed to a device (Fig 16A, Cols 4-5, lines 68 & 1-13, respectively) in which the fastener tabs (1a) are attached to one wire (D) each (Col 5, lines 27-40), and the connections (6) between the individual label carriers (H) are cut (Col 5, lines 1-13). With respect to claim 8, Mori discloses that the endless belt (Fig 2) comprises a plurality of label carriers (H) are oriented parallel to one another are connected by at least one connecting strip (6) to form an endless belt (Col 4, lines 64-68), and wherein which each label carrier (H) has a flat profile (1) in part and has two elastically expandable wings (2, 2), which form a channel (5) having a slot (4), wherein the flat profile comprises on one end, a fastener tab (1a). With respect to claim 9, Mori discloses that the wings (2, 2) form an internal conical sleeve (Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (Pat Num 5,187,887) in view of Liversidge (GB Pat Num 2539549). Mori discloses a method of attaching a label carrier (Figs 1-26) which is easily and readily inserted in between the lugs (Col 1, lines 47-57). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Mori discloses contact arrangement (Fig 4) having an electrical conductive wire (D), which has a contact (T) at one end (Figs 2-4), and having a label carrier (H) secured on the insulating sheath (located at D) of an electrically conductive wire (D), wherein the label carrier (H) formed of an elongated strip of elastically expandable material (Col 4, line 49-51), and wherein the label carrier (H) has a flat profile (1) in part (Fig 1), wherein the flat profile (1) of the label carrier (H) comprises a fastener tab (1a) and wherein at one end of the label carrier (H), the flat profile (1) gradually merges into two wings (2, 2), which form a channel (5) with an longitudinal slot (4) between the two wings (3, 2), inserting a wire (D) through the slot (4) and into the channel (5) formed by the wings (2, 2, as shown in Fig 15F), wherein the wire (D) is held by friction between the wings (2, 2, Col 2, lines 28-52). With respect to claim 6, Mori discloses that the label carrier (H) is secured to each wire (D) and has a width (Fig 4).
While Mori discloses the conductive wire (D) comprising a terminal (T), Mori doesn’t necessarily disclose that terminal being a contact pin terminal (claim 5), nor the contact arrangement having a plug connector, which has a plurality of mutually adjacent contact openings, into each of which a contact pin connected to an electrically conductive wire can be inserted, wherein the width of the label carriers, which extend in the longitudinal direction of the wires, is not greater than the spacing between the contact openings (claim 6).
Liversidge teaches a contact arrangement (Figs 1-19) that provides enhanced safety at a connection between the cable and another component, while providing electrical shielding and identification of the cable at the connection (Page 1, lines 5-10). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Liversidge teaches a contact arrangement (Fig 7) comprising a label carrier (10) to an insulating sheath (8) of an electrically conductive wire (2), wherein the electrically conductive wire (2) comprises a contact pin terminal (12) on one end of the wire (2, Figs 2a-2b), wherein the contact arrangement (Fig 7) has a plug connector (located at 90), which has a plurality of mutually adjacent contact openings (92), into each of which a contact pin (12) connected to an electrically conductive wire (2) can be inserted (Fig 7), and wherein the width of the label carriers (10), which extend in the longitudinal direction of the wires (2), is not greater than the spacing between the contact openings (92, Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of contact arrangements at the time the invention was made to modify the terminal of Mori to comprise the contact pin terminal inserted in a plug connection configuration as taught by Liversidge because Liversidge teaches that such a configuration provides a contact arrangement (Figs 1-19) that provides enhanced safety at a connection between the cable and another component, while providing electrical shielding and identification of the cable at the connection (Page 1, lines 5-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various labels for electrically conductive wires.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. 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.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights