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 § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 13, 18, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 8,814,598 (“Hein”).
Regarding claim 1, Hein discloses a connection mechanism having a shield, comprising a functional cable (110), a plug-in terminal (621), an inner shell (400) integrally formed with the functional cable and the plug-in terminal, and a protective shielding shell (300) disposed on at least part of an outer periphery of the inner shell; the functional cable is provided with a shielding layer (130), to which the protective shielding shell is at least partially electrically connected (connection at 200).
Regarding claim 2, Hein discloses a protective conductor (140) and a grounding terminal (510), one end of the protective shielding shell is at least partially electrically connected to the shielding layer, and the other end thereof is at least partially electrically connected to the protective conductor or the grounding terminal (col. 11, lns. 22 – 39).
Regarding claim 3, Hein discloses the protective shielding shell comprises a shielding device (200) which is at least partially electrically connected to the shielding layer.
Regarding claim 4, Hein discloses wherein an inner surface of the protective shielding shell is further provided with an electrically-conductive elastic sheet (see portions 241), which is in contacted connection with the shielding layer and applies a pressure to the shielding layer (see Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 9, Hein discloses wherein the plug-in terminal (621) comprises a first fixation portion (crimp section, see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lns. 27 – 39) and a plug-in portion (mating portion, see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lns. 27 – 39) which are sequentially disposed (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hein discloses wherein the functional cable comprises a cable core (portion within 130) disposed at an innermost part of the functional cable (see col. 1, lns. 14 – 24), the shielding layer sleeved around an outer periphery of the cable core (see Fig. 1 and col. 1, lns. 14 – 24), and an insulation layer (120) sleeved around an outer periphery of the shielding layer, and the first fixation portion (200) is electrically connected to a conductive part (130) of the cable core.
Regarding claim 11, Hein discloses wherein the inner shell has a groove, and the plug-in portion at least partially protrudes from a bottom surface of the groove without exceeding the inner shell (the terminals have latch elements which enter a depression of 400, see col. 6, lns. 18 – 26, and the female terminals 620-622 are within the housing, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Hein discloses wherein the inner shell is provided with an open boss (420) in which the plug-in portion is at least partially disposed (see Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Hein discloses wherein the protective shielding shell at least wraps the first fixation portion and at least part of the functional cable, but is insulated from the plug-in terminal and a conductive part of the functional cable (300 surrounds the terminals and is insulated by 400 from contacts 620-622).
Regarding claim 18, Hein discloses wherein the grounding terminal (510) comprises a second fixation portion and a plug-in portion, and the second fixation portion is electrically connected to the protective conductor (see the crimp and mating portion, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 32, Hein discloses an electric energy transmission apparatus, comprising the connection mechanism having a shield according to claim 1 (See above).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,585,415 (“Marsh”).
Regarding claim 5, Hein discloses pressure being applied by the electrically-conductive elastic sheet, but does not disclose wherein the pressure applied by the electrically-conductive elastic sheet is in a range of 0.3 N to 95 N.
However, Marsh teaches an elastic connection to a shielded cable, where the connection includes a total applied pressure of 100 N to secure the cable within the elastic shield member (col. 1, lns. 66 – col. 2, ln. 1). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Here, a pressure of 100 N applied to a shielded cable by an elastic shield shell member is taught by the prior art, therefore the claimed pressure is obvious because this involves discovering the optimum or workable range of pressure which is only routine skill in the art.
Claims 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,854,891 (“Kamei”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hein discloses an electrical connection between the protective shielding shell and the shielding layer, which inherently had an impedance, but does not disclose the impedance is less than 80 mΩ, or wherein a transfer impedance of the protective shielding shell is less than 100 mΩ.
However, Kamei teaches a connector where the impedance through a cable and shield shell is 5 milliohms (col. 3, lns. 46 – 48). Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Here, the art teaches that impedance values which meet the claimed impedance values are desirable, therefore the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,692,096 (“Gladd”).
Regarding claim 8, Hein does not disclose the protective shielding shell and at least part of the shielding layer are integrally injection-molded.
However, Gladd teaches a shield shell (14) and shielded cable layer (12) integrally connected through injection molding (see the abstract and 108).
It would have been obvious to utilize injection molding as taught by Gladd, because this improves the connection of the shell and shielding layer because the shell flows through the shielding layer.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of JP H04-154060 (“Changchun”).
Regarding claim 14, Hein does not disclose wherein the inner shell is integrally injection-molded on outer peripheries of at least the first fixation portion, the plug-in terminal and a conductive part of the functional cable, and achieves an insulation effect.
However, Changchun teaches a connector with a cable (C), inner shell (5), shielding shell (4), terminals (1), and shielding layer (3) connected to the shell, wherein the inner shell is integrally injection-molded on outer peripheries of at least the first fixation portion, the plug-in terminal and a conductive part of the functional cable, and achieves an insulation effect (See Figs. 1, 2, and 5, and the abstract). It would have been obvious to mold the inner shell because this ensures the components covered by the shell are closely protected by the molded insulative structure, helping ensure the components are protected from water damage and physical damage.
Regarding claim 15, Hein discloses wherein the protective shielding shell at least wraps the outer periphery of the inner shell (see Fig. 5), but does not disclose the protective shielding shell is integrally injection-molded on at least part of the outer periphery of the inner shell.
However, Changchun teaches a connector with a cable (C), inner shell (5), shielding shell (4), terminals (1), and shielding layer (3) connected to the shell, and the protective shielding shell is integrally injection-molded on at least part of the outer periphery of the inner shell (see an outer periphery of 5 molded to 4, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to mold the inner shell so that the shielding shell was integrally-injection molded on the inner shell because this ensures inner shell and shielding shell are affixed together due to the molding.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0034165 (“Brehm”).
Regarding claim 16, Hein does not disclose wherein the outer periphery of the inner shell and/or the protective shielding shell is further integrally injection-molded with an outer insulation shell, which wraps at least part of the inner shell and/or the protective shielding shell and at least part of the functional cable.
However, Brehm teaches a connector with an inner shell 14, protective shielding shell layer 32, cable 12, and terminals within 14, wherein the outer periphery of the protective shielding shell is further integrally injection-molded ([0006]) with an outer insulation shell (16) which wraps at least part of the protective shielding shell and at least part of the functional cable (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to mold an outer insulation shell as taught by Brehm, because this insulator further protects the shielding shell and also helps ensure that unwanted structures come into electrical contact with the shielding shell.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,099,814 (“Snader”).
Regarding claim 17, Hein does not disclose interlocking connection mechanism at least partially integrally injection-molded in the inner shell. However, Snader teaches a connector with an inner shell 28 and shield member 30, with terminals including an interlocking connection mechanism 24, see col. 4, lns. 19 – 24, at least partially integrally injection-molded in the inner shell (see step 112).
It would have been obvious to include an interlock member as taught by Snader, because this helps ensure that the connector does not spark when engaging/disengaging a mating connector.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hein in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,165,205 (“Dube”).
Regarding claim 33, Hein discloses the connection mechanism having a shield according to claim 1, and discloses the connector as being used for connections to motors, but does not disclose a motor vehicle with the connector of claim 1. However, Dube teaches that vehicles utilize shielded connectors for motor connections (see the abstract and col. 1, lns. 21 – 23). It would have been obvious to utilize the connector of Hein in a motor vehicle as taught by Dube, because this increases the industrial applicability of the connector and makes it more valuable to end users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights