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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 and 09/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has, however, failed to submit an appropriate IDS for the documents cited by the European Patent Office in corresponding application EP4481952. The European Search Report (“ESR”) and accompanying Opinion (“ESO”), each dated 11/27/2024, cites to WO2019/229578 and WO2023/047965. As indicated by the ESR, both documents are considered to be X references, and the ESO provides item-to-item matching between the prior art and the instant subject matter.
Under 37 C.F.R. 1.56, Applicant is obligated to disclose “to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” Information is considered “material to patentability” when it “is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record” and “establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim.” As Applicant is certainly aware of, a prima facie case of unpatentability “is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification….”
The presence of X references with valid prior art dates, at absolute minimum, indicates a strong likelihood that the X reference is “material to patentability.” Applicant is therefore reminded of their duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes the disclosure of known prior art.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) and (m). The quality of lines and shading in the figures is inadequate for clear reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “securing a locking of a locking element” in the preamble of the claim. This appears to be a deficiency in translation from the foreign priority document, as “securing a locking” is not a complete or coherent phrase. The term “locking” is the present participle of “lock” when “lock” is used as a verb. There is no corresponding noun form for “locking.” Thus, “a locking” is indefinite because it fails to clearly recite an action/configuration or a physical element of the locking element. As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is attempting to recite “[a] securing device for securing a locking engagement of a locking element….” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it instead recited Examiner’s best understanding of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant further recites “the lock” in line 4 of the claim as filed. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation. The preceding lines of claim 1 (i.e., ll. 1-3) only recite “securing a locking” and “configured to lock” in lines 1 and 3, respectively. As discussed above, the preamble recitation is grammatically improper and does not appear to represent a physical limitation. The limitation of line 3 utilizes the verb form of “lock” and thus cannot serve as antecedent basis for a physical limitation (i.e., “the lock”). As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is attempting to recite “an indicator element configured to indicate whether the locking element is in the first locking position or the second locking position….” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it instead recited Examiner’s best understanding of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant further recites “an optically modifying element that in the first locking position of the locking element…and in the second locking position of the locking element….” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the optical modifying element is physically placed in a space corresponding to the first and second locking position of the locking element, or whether the limitations seek to configure the optical modifying element based on a current position of the locking element. As best understood by Examiner, the latter of the above is Applicant’s intent. As such, Examiner has interpreted the relevant portion of the claim as if it instead recited the following: “an optically modifying element configured to optically modify a representation…when the locking element is in the first locking position…and configured to not optically modify a representation…when the locking element is in the second locking position.” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it instead recited Examiner’s best understanding of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 9 is further rejected because the claim again recites “the lock” in line 3 of the claim as filed. As with the same limitation of claim 1, the limitation of claim 9 lacks clear antecedent basis. As above, there is no recitation of “a lock” in the physical sense; instead, claim 1 recites “securing a locking [engagement]” and indication of a “locking position.” Claim 9 appears to be a reference to the former. As best understood by Examiner, claim 9 attempts to recite “configured to perform [CPA] when securing a locking engagement between a connector….” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it instead recited Examiner’s best understanding of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 13 are further rejected because the subject matter therein is not clearly and positively recited or, alternatively, lacks appropriate antecedent basis. Claims 12 and 13 recite identical subject matter save for dependency. Each claim recites, in relevant part, “configured to slide the indicator element out from under the optically modifying element” in lines 4-5 of each claim. None of the claims from which claims 12 and 13 depend recite placement of the indicator element beneath the optically modifying element. As Applicant does not clearly and positively recite the subject matter (e.g., “wherein, in the first locking position, the indicator element is provided under the optically modifying element”), it is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to now recite such subject matter or if, instead, Applicant has failed to properly recite dependency from either of claims 3 or 7 where such subject matter is recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0372262 (“Christiano”).
Regarding claim 1, Christiano discloses:
A securing device (mated connector pair comprising connectors 102, 104) for securing a locking [engagement] of a locking element (connector 102), comprising:
the locking element (102) configured to move from a first locking position (corresponding to a unmated position of connectors 102, 104) into a second locking position (corresponding to a fully mated position of connectors 102, 104; see para. [0032]), the locking element configured to lock in the second locking position (para. [0031]; CPA device 206 indicates a locked connection when connectors 102, 104 are fully mated);
an indicator element (112a, 112b, 112c) configured to indicate the lock of the locking element (para. [0028]); and
an optically modifying element (CPA device 206) that in the first locking position (an unlocked or unmated position of connector 102; see FIG 8) of the locking element (102), is configured to optically modify a representation1 of the indicator element such that the indicator element is not able to indicate an item of information (see FIG 8 and para. [0048]; “In a non-limiting example, the appendage 604 covers at least 60% or at least 70% of the graphic identifiers 112, and the reader device 114 is not able to decipher the information contained in the identifiers 112 by viewing the visible portion of the identifiers 112”) and in the second locking position of the locking element, the optically modifying element is configured to not optically modify the representation of the indicator element (see FIG 9) such that the indicator element indicates the item of information (see para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses that, in both the first locking position and the second locking position, the indicator element is not concealed2 and always remains visible3. As may be seen from FIGS 8 and 9, and as is disclosed in paras. [0048-49], the CPA device 206 of Christiano only partially covers indicators 112a-c. When broadly construed, a partial covering of the indicators differs from placing the indicators “out of sight.” Thus, Christiano discloses the indicator as being unconcealed in both positions. Furthermore, when broadly construed, partial covering still permits the indicators 112a-c to be seen (as shown by FIG 8). Thus, Christiano discloses the indicator as being visible in both positions. As such, Christiano discloses each and every limitation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Chistiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the optically modifying element (206) including an opaque optical4 element (main body 602 of CPA device 206), which, in the first locking position of the locking element, is positioned above the indicator element (as shown in FIG 8) and optically clouds5 at least part of the representation of the indicator element (as shown in FIG 8).
Regarding claim 5, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the indicator element (112a-c) includes an identifying feature configured to be read (para. [0019]), which, in the first locking position of the locking element, the identifying feature is optically modified by the optically modifying element in such a way that it is no longer readable (para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 and further discloses the identifying feature including a code (“[t]he graphic identifiers 112 are coded indicia that represent information”).
Regarding claim 7, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the indicator element (112a-c) is placed on the locking element (102, as shown by FIGS 2, 3) and, in the first locking position, is positioned underneath the optically modifying element (as shown in FIG 8); and wherein a movement of the locking element from the first locking position into the second locking position moves the indicator element away from the optically modifying element (as shown in FIG 9; see also paras. [0047-49]).
Regarding claim 8, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the indicator element is discernible when the representation of the indicator element is not optically modified by the optically modifying element (see FIG 8).
Regarding claim 9, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the securing device configured to perform connector position assurance (CPA device 206 provides the connection position assurance function when locking the connector of Christiano) when securing a locking engagement between a connector housing (118) and a mating connector housing (124).
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternative interpretation of Christiano.
Regarding claim 1, Christiano discloses:
A securing device for securing a locking [engagement] of a locking element (tab 614 of CPA device 206), comprising:
the locking element (614) configured to move from a first locking position (corresponding to the lever 208 being in an “open” position) into a second locking position (para. [0050]; “the lever 208 achieves the closed position, a tab 614 projecting from the handle 214 of the lever 208 deflects the latch of the CPA device 206 into a clearance position that allows the latch and the CPA device 206 to move in the locking direction 612”), the locking element configured to lock in the second locking position (“the lock position shown in FIG. 9”);
an indicator element (112a, 112b, 112c) configured to indicate the lock of the locking element (para. [0028]); and
an optically modifying element (main body 602 of CPA device 206) that in the first locking position (corresponding to connectors 102 and 104 being unmated or not fully mated) of the locking element (i.e., before tab 614 “deflects the latch and allows CPA device 206 to move in the locking direction”), is configured to optically modify a representation6 of the indicator element such that the indicator element is not able to indicate an item of information (see FIG 8 and para. [0048]; “In a non-limiting example, the appendage 604 covers at least 60% or at least 70% of the graphic identifiers 112, and the reader device 114 is not able to decipher the information contained in the identifiers 112 by viewing the visible portion of the identifiers 112”) and in the second locking position of the locking element, the optically modifying element is configured to not optically modify the representation of the indicator element (see FIG 9) such that the indicator element indicates the item of information (see para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the securing device configured to perform connector position assurance (CPA device 206 provides the connection position assurance function when locking the connector of Christiano) when securing a locking engagement between a connector housing (118) and a mating connector housing (124).
Regarding claim 10, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and further discloses a clamping element (208) for clamping the connector housing into the mating connector housing (see para. [0032]), wherein the clamping element is configured to move from an open clamping-element position (inherent; para. [0032] discusses the lever 208 being pivotable in multiple directions and, based on the pivoting direction, the connectors are either mated or unmated; para. [0050] provides that lever 208 is positioned in a “closed” position when the connectors are fully mated, thus the lever must be in an “open” position” when the connectors are unmated), in which the connector housing is configured to be inserted into the mating connector housing (inherent; the connector housings are configured such that the connector housing 118 is insertable within the mating housing 124; thus, when the connectors are not mated at all, the connector housing is inherently “configured to be inserted into the mating connector housing” as recited), into a closed clamping-element position (para. [0050]), in which the connector housing is fastened to the mating connector housing (“the lever 208 in shown in a closed position relative to the housing 118, which is the position of the lever 208 when the connector 102 is fully mated to the mating connector 104”) with electrical contact (inherent; the connector of Christiano is an electrical connector and thus electrical contact is inherent to the connection between respective connector elements); and wherein the locking element is placed on the clamping element (para. [0050]; “a tab 614 projecting from the handle 214 of the lever 208”) and configured to lock or unlock7 the clamping element (inherent; tab 614 causes CPA device 206 to move into “the lock position” and thus it may be reasonably inferred that the tab 614 which causes a deflection of a part of the CPA device 206 is captured and held in place, i.e., “locked,” thereby causing the CPA device 206 to lock the clamping element).
Regarding claim 11, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10 and further discloses that, in the closed clamping-element position, the locking element is configured to move from the first locking position into the second locking position and is configured in the second locking position, to lock the clamping element in the closed clamping-element position (para. [0050]; see discussion in the rejection of claim 10, above) and, in the first locking position, to unlock the clamping element for a movement into the open clamping-element position (inherent; as the second position of the locking element 614 corresponds to a closed clamping-element position, and the lock position is not achieved unless the second position is achieved by placing the clamp into the closed-clamping element position, it inherently follows that the first locking position is “an unlock” position such that the clamping element may be moved into the open-clamping element position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 12, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and/or being subject to a rejection under §112, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matters of instant claims 3, 12, and 13.
With respect to claim 3, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose the optically modifying element including an optical lens or optical prism configured to optically distort at least part of the indicator element when the locking element is in the first locking position.
Examiner is unable to find any prior art that, alone or in combination with Christiano, would disclose or render obvious the instant subject matter. With respect to modification of Christiano, Examiner is unable to find or conceive of a reasonable motivation to modify the main body 604 of CPA device 206 such that it includes an optical lens or prism that would visually distort indicators 112a-c. There is no clear benefit from such a modification, and such a modification would not meaningfully alter the function or operation of the structures in Christiano.
Thus, claim 3 distinguishes over the prior art of record.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Christiano discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose the optically modifying element being positioned on the clamping element, the indicator element being placed on the locking element, or a movement of the locking element being configured to slide the indicator element out from under the optically modifying element.
While the prior art discloses placement of a CPA device on the lever of a mating connector (see, e.g., FIGS 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,583,860), there is no clear motivation to modify Christiano to utilize such a configuration. Moreover, the ‘860 reference does not actually disclose “an optically modifying element,” but instead relies on an aperture in the lever (i.e., the clamping element) to conceal or reveal the indicator element. As such, Examiner finds that the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if the rejections above were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Merriam-Webster provides that “representation” may be defined as “someone or something that represents: such as an artistic likeness or image.” Here, “a representation” may be broadly and reasonably interpreted to be an image as seen from a particular viewing angle.
2 Merriam-Webster provides that “conceal” may be defined as “to place out of sight.”
3 Merriam-Webster provides that “visible” may be defined as “capable of being seen.”
4 Merriam-Webster provides that “optical” may be defined as “of or relating to vision.” The CPA device 206 “relates to vision” in the sense that it allows or prohibits vision of the indicator elements 112a-c.
5 Merriam-Webster provides that “cloud” or “clouds,” when used as a transitive verb, may be defined as “to envelop of hide with or as if with a cloud.” The body 602 of CPA device 206 “clouds” the indicator elements 112a-c in the sense that it “hides” the elements from view.
6 Merriam-Webster provides that “representation” may be defined as “someone or something that represents: such as an artistic likeness or image.” Here, “a representation” may be broadly and reasonably interpreted to be an image as seen from a particular viewing angle.
7 Examiner notes that the language of claim 10 does not require the locking element be configured to both lock and unlock the clamping element; instead, it only need lock or unlock the clamping element.
Prosecution Insights