DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-10 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a plastic material coating at least on an exterior surface of the locking pin that is configured to interface with a movable locking bracket of the plug connector housing” is indefinite. The literal and ordinary plain meaning of the limitation is that it is the locking pin that is configured to interface with a movable locking bracket of the plug connector housing. Review of Applicant’s arguments reveal that Applicant appears to believe that the limitation means that it is the plastic material that is configured to interface with a movable locking bracket of the plug connector housing. This interpretation is contrary to the literal and ordinary plain meaning of the limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments indicate that the claim is indefinite. The limitation is analyzed under its literal and ordinary plain meaning interpretation, in particular, that it is the locking pin that is configured to interface with a movable locking bracket of the plug connector housing.
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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE A1 10 2019 108 628 (“Damsch”) in view of and Julian et al. US 5639268 (“Julian”).
Regarding claim 1, Damsch discloses a plug connector housing (1, figure 1), comprising: at least two locking pins (22) which project on the outside of the plug connector housing on opposite sides of the housing,
Each locking pin being is composed substantially of a metallic component (see English translation, referred to herein as “ET”, page 1 paragraph 3) includes a plastic material 11 to include a plastic material coating at least on an exterior surface of the locking pin that is configured to interface with a movable locking bracket of the plug connector housing.
Damsch does not disclose that the sleeve 11 is overmolded on the metallic component (16, 17) and that the sleeve is plastic in particular.
Regarding the limitation that the sleeve be overmolded, the addition of a method step in a product claim, which product is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the old product. In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969). “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP section 2113. Therefore whether the Damsch sleeve is overmolded does not patentably distinguish the claimed plastic part from the Damsch plastic part. In any case, Julian discloses a plastic overmold housing 18 (col. 3, lines 15-20) overmolded onto a metallic component 11. It would have been obvious to form the Damsch element 11 out of plastic overmolded onto the metallic component as taught in Julian. The reason would have been to use a well-known material (plastic) via a well known process (overmolding).
Regarding claim 2 Damsch discloses the metallic component is composed of steel (ET at page 1, ¶ 4) and that the housing is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy. It would have been obvious to make the metallic component out of aluminum just as is the housing. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960). The reason would have been, for example, simplification of manufacturing.
Per claim 3 the Damsch plug connector housing is composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (ET at page 1, paragraph 4).
Per claim 8 each locking pin is designed to be substantially cylindrical.
Per claim 9, the metallic component is embodied as a riveting bolt or threaded bolt.
Per claim 10, as set out regarding claim 1, the plug connector would have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
As best understood by the examiner, applicant argues that Damsch does not the claimed invention because it does not disclose the limitation discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above. The examiner maintains Damsch does disclose the claimed invention, as set out above. The examiner maintains that Applicant’s interpretation of the claimed limitation is contrary to the literal and ordinary plain meaning interpretation of the claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 might would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, depending on how the rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
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 ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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 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.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights