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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the “wire pressing member”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claim 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,671,190. Although the
claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of
double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a blade contact member
connected to contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a
mating connector.
Claims 21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,866. Although the
claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of
double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a blade contact member
connected to contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a
mating connector.
Claims 21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claim 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,573,794. Although the
claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of
double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a blade contact member
connected to contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a
mating connector.
Claims 21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,555,931. Although the
claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of
double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a blade contact member
connected to contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a
mating connector.
Claims 21 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,565. Although the
claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of
double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a blade contact member
connected to contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a
mating connector.
Claims 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No.
18/826,553 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are
not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention
was effectively filed to use a blade contact member connected to contact assembly in
order to provide a known efficient interface to a mating connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No.
18/122,600 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are
not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention
was effectively filed to use a blade contact member connected to contact assembly in
order to provide a known efficient interface to a mating connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No.
18/122,547 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are
not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention
was effectively filed to use a blade contact member connected to contact assembly in
order to provide a known efficient interface to a mating connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 26 of copending Application No.
18/764,889 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are
not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention
was effectively filed to use a blade contact member (instead of a blade) connected to
contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a mating connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 21 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No.
18/076,934 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are
not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention
was effectively filed to use a blade contact member (instead of a blade) connected to
contact assembly in order to provide a known efficient interface to a mating connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 21-28 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tedeschi (US 9,331,427).
Regarding claim 21, Tedeschi discloses an electrical wiring device (10,100) comprising: a body (20) having an interior that is at least partially hollow, a plurality of blade openings providing access from the exterior of the body to the hollow interior of the body, and a cable opening that provides access from an exterior of the body to the hollow interior of the body; and a plurality of contact assemblies (30, 30) positioned in the hollow interior of the body, wherein each of the plurality of the contact assemblies includes: a contact member having a contact blade (33) aligned with one of the plurality of blade openings such that the contact blade can pass through the one of the plurality of blade openings and extend from the body; a wire terminal including a clamp brace (38) electrically connected to the contact member and a clamping member (32) electrically connected to the clamp brace, the clamping member having a wire pressing member (transverse part of 36, Figs. 6) and is movable between a closed position where a wire can be clamped, and an open position where the wire can be positioned so that the wire can be clamped between the clamp brace (38) and the wire pressing member; and an actuator (40) that is interactive with the clamping member such that movement of the actuator in a first direction causes the actuator to move the clamping member from the closed position to the open position, and movement of the actuator in
a second direction moves the clamping member from the open position to the closed position.
Regarding claim 22, the clamping member is a clamp spring (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 23, the clamping member remains in the closed position or the open position until the actuator is manually moved (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 24, the movement of the actuator in the second direction is opposite the movement of the actuator in the first direction (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 25, the movement of the actuator in the first direction and the second direction is parallel to the clamp brace (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 26, the movement of the actuator in the first direction and the second direction is linear (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 27, movement of the actuator in the first and second directions is relative to the clamping member (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 28, when in the closed position the clamping member can clamp the wire with a force that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire (Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 30, Tedeschi discloses an electrical wiring device (10, 100) comprising: a body (20) having an interior that is at least partially hollow, a plurality of blade openings providing access from the exterior of the body to the hollow interior of the body, and a cable opening that provides access from an exterior of the body to the hollow interior of the body; and a plurality of contact assemblies (30, 40) positioned in the hollow interior of the body, wherein each of the plurality of the contact assemblies includes: a contact member having a contact blade (33) aligned with one of the plurality of blade openings such that the contact blade can pass through the one of the plurality of blade openings and extend from the body; a wire terminal (30) including a clamp brace (38) electrically connected to the contact member and a clamping member (35)
electrically connected to the clamp brace, the clamping member having a wire pressing member (transverse portion of 36) and is movable between a closed position where a wire can be clamped between the clamp brace (38) and the wire pressing member, and an open position where the wire can be positioned so that the wire can be clamped between the clamp brace (38) and the wire pressing member; and an actuator (40) that is interactive with the clamping member such that movement of the actuator in a first direction from a first position to a second position causes the actuator to move the clamping member from the closed position to the open position, and movement of the actuator in a second direction permits the clamping member to automatically move from the open position to the closed position, wherein the clamping member remains in the
closed position or the open position until the actuator is manually moved.
Regarding claim 31, the clamping member is a clamp spring.
Regarding claim 32, the movement of the actuator in the second direction is opposite the movement of the actuator in the first direction.
Regarding claim 33, the movement of the actuator in the first direction and the second direction is parallel to the clamp brace.
Regarding claim 34, the movement of the actuator in the first direction and the second direction is linear.
Regarding claim 35, wherein movement of the actuator in the first and second directions is relative to the clamping member.
Regarding claim 36, the wire can be clamped by the clamping member such that the wire is clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace.
Regarding claim 37, when in the closed position the clamping member can clamp the wire with a force that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire.
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 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tedeschi in view of Toly (US 7,114,986).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, Tedeschi discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the wiring device comprises a power cord plug. Wiring devices comprising a power cord plug are well known in the art as evidenced by Toly. Toly discloses an electrical wiring device comprising a power cord plug. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the electrical wiring device of Tedeschi by providing a power cord plug as taught by Toly for meeting the needs of the customer's mating electrical connections in order to gain the market share associated with that customer as taught by Toly in the background information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights