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 that the locking pins are “disposed so as to be mutually opposite” is indefinite. It is unclear whether this means that the pins are on opposite sides of the housing or facing different directions or facing each other or something else. The limitation is given little weight.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 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 an outside of the plug connector 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 non-metallic material 11 (ET page 4, ¶ 3, figure 3) at least in regions of the locking pin.
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 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 4, the Damsch metallic component of each locking pin has two encircling and mutually spaced-apart webs (labeled W1 and W2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 5 one web (labeled W2 above, alternatively, see embodiment of figure 2) is supported on the outside on a wall of the plug connector housing, and the other web (labeled W1 above) is provided on an end side on a riveting bolt or threaded bolt).
Per claim 6 the plastics material (11) is disposed substantially between the webs.
Per claim 7 at least one web is overmolded (i.e., at least partially covered by) by the plastics material at least in regions of the web (the rear surface of web W2 above is covered by the plastic portion 11).
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.
Conclusion
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