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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: VB’, as shown in figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damsch et al. (DE102019108628A1).
With regard to claim 1, Damsch teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “A plug connector housing 2, comprising: at least two locking pins 15 (the Abstract teaches there can be more than one locking pin) which project on an outside of the plug connector housing 2… and substructure elements 11 which are in each case assigned to at least one respective locking pin 15”.
Damsch does not specifically teach the locking pins “are disposed so as to be mutually opposite”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the location of the locking pins mutually opposite in order to provide locking at multiple locations. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 2, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the substructure elements 11 are provided for relieving the mechanical load on the locking pins 15”.
With regard to claim 3, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the locking pins 15 are designed as riveting bolts or threaded bolts”.
With regard to claim 4, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the substructure elements 11 are integrally cast or molded on the outside of the plug connector housing 2”.
With regard to claim 5, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch does not teach: “wherein the substructure elements are an integral constituent part of the plug connector housing”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substructure element as an integral part of the plug connector housing in order to secure the substructure element to the plug connector housing. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
With regard to claim 6, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the substructure elements 11 project perpendicularly from the plug connector housing 2”.
With regard to claim 11, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the plug connector housing 2 and the locking pins 15 are made of different materials”.
With regard to claim 12, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch does not teach: “wherein the plug connector housing and the substructure element are composed of the same material”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same material for the substructure element and the plug connector housing in order to use less types of materials. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 13, Damsch teaches: “…a plug connector as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in the Abstract: “A plug connector 1” comprising the plug connector as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damsch et al. (DE102019108628A1) in view of Schuster et al. (DE4227078A1).
With regard to claim 7, Damsch teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Damsch does not teach: “further comprising at least two sleeves, and wherein the locking pins are in each case at least partially enclosed by a respective one of the sleeves”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Schuster teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “further comprising at least two sleeves 29, and wherein the locking pins 30 are in each case at least partially enclosed by a respective one of the sleeves 29”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Schuster with the invention of Damsch in order to protect the pin from friction (Schuster, translation page 4 lines 6-9).
With regard to claim 8, Damsch as modified by Schuster teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 7”, as shown above.
Schuster also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein each sleeve 29 is designed as a hollow cylinder with a circular cross section or as a hollow cylinder with a partially prismatic and partly circular cross-section”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Schuster with the invention of Damsch as modified by Schuster in order to protect the pin from friction (Schuster, translation page 4 lines 6-9).
With regard to claim 9, Damsch as modified by Schuster teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 7”, as shown above.
Schuster also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein each of the substructure elements 19 is designed in the shape of a shell to receive the respective sleeve 29 in a form-fitting manner”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Schuster with the invention of Damsch as modified by Schuster in order to protect the pin from friction (Schuster, translation page 4 lines 6-9).
With regard to claim 10, Damsch as modified by Schuster teaches: “The plug connector housing as claimed in claim 7”, as shown above.
Schuster also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein each sleeve 29 is supported on the substructure element 19 and is at least partially received therein in a form-fitting manner”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights