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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 7/15/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 23185705.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001] recites "241873597.9" for the European patent application to which the present application claims priority to. This application number appears to be wrong, it should read "24187357.9".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites "a ring" should read "the ring". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 7 and 8 recite “retaining means”, the written description discloses the retaining means (27) is/are flexible and a chamfered portion helps the insertion, so as to make it more difficult to remove it in the opposite direction, to facilitate the insertion of the ring and nut (28) onto the counter-connector (10) and hold the ring and nut captive, see [0034]. Therefore, “retaining means” is a flexible structure with a chamfered portion that allows for easy insertion.
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 7-8 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the limitation “retaining means” is interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The recited functions are “retaining a ring” and “capturing the nut”. The specification states that the function of “retention of the nut 28” is actually achieved through “specific crimping” of the ring 31 (see [0034]). Therefore, the retaining means 27 does not actually perform the function of “capturing the nut” as claimed; rather a separate process (specific crimping) performed on a different component (the ring) performs the function. Moreover, the specifications fails to define the “specific crimping” required to capture the nut. Without a structural description of this crimping process/retaining means, or resulting physical geometry, the boundaries of “retaining means” is not clearly defined, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art to guess at the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reedy et al. [US 20230327374 A1] .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Reedy discloses a connector assembly (see Fig 2), comprising: a support (114); a connector (118) having a connector housing configured to accommodate at least one first electrical terminal (not numbered, however, the two electrical connectors 118 and 110 are to be electrically connected to one another, see annotated Figure 5); a counter-connector (110) configured to mate with the connector (118) and having a counter-connector housing configured to accommodate at least one second electrical terminal (mating terminals of the mating connector 110, not numbered) configured to be connected to the at least one first electrical terminal; and at least one securing member (120) extending longitudinally along a securing direction, the support (114) being configured to receive the connector (118), the at least one securing member (120) comprising a first securing section (126, see Fig 3) configured to secure the connector (118) onto the support (114) and a second securing section (128) configured to secure the counter-connector (110) onto the connector (118).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Reedy further discloses the first securing section (126) comprises a first threaded portion (see [0036]) configured to be screwed onto the support (114).
Regarding Claim 3, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Reedy further discloses the second securing section (128) comprises a second threaded portion (see [0036]) configured to be screwed with a nut (132, see Fig 8B) to hold the counter-connector (110) mated to the connector (118).
Regarding Claim 4, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 3, Reedy further discloses the at least one securing member (120) comprises a free end located on a same side as the second threaded portion (128), the free end comprising a screwing structure whose shape (hexagonal head 130) is complementary to that of a tool (wrench).
Regarding Claim 5, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 4, Reedy further discloses the tool comprises a wrench. The hexagonal head 130 is designed for a wrench.
Regarding Claim 9, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Reedy further discloses the at least one securing member (120) comprises a standoff section between the first and second securing sections (126, 128; see Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 9, Reedy further discloses the standoff section comprises a nut section (130) forming a single piece with the at least one securing member (120).
Regarding Claim 11, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 10, Reedy further discloses the standoff section comprises a ring section (the integral nut 130 with the integral ring below it, see Fig 3) configured to cooperate with the connector (118) to hold the connector (118) onto the support (114).
Regarding Claim 12, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 11, Reedy further discloses the ring section (the integral nut 130 with the integral ring below it, see Fig 3) forming a single piece with the at least one securing member (120).
Regarding Claim 14, Reedy discloses a method of assembling a connector (118) and a counter-connector (110) with a support (114), comprising; placing the connector (118) onto the support (114); securing the connector (118) onto the support (114) via at least one securing member (120); placing the connector (118) and the counter-connector (110) so that at least one first terminal (not numbered, however, the two electrical connectors 118 and 110 are to be electrically connected to one another, see annotated Figure 5) accommodated in the connector (118) and at least one second terminal (mating terminals of the mating connector 110, not numbered) accommodated in the counter-connector (110) are in a premating position (see Figure 5), and so that the counter-connector (110) is in a position relative to the at least one securing member (120), which is configured to engage a fastener (132) on the at least one securing member (120); and securing a first securing section (126) of the at least one securing member (120) onto the support (114) so as to secure the connector (118) onto the support (114) and securing the counter-connector (110) onto the connector (118) with the fastener (132) engaged onto a second securing section (128) of the at least one securing member (120).
Regarding Claim 15, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 14, Reedy further discloses the fastener (132) is a nut.
Regarding Claim 16, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 15, Reedy further discloses at least one first terminal and the at least one second terminal are connected while the nut (132) is screwed on the at least one securing member (120, see Figures 9-10).
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 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Reedy et al. [US 20230327374 A1].
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 6, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 4, Reedy does not explicitly disclose the tool comprises a screwdriver.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reedy to provide a screwdriver as the tool. Screws are commonly driven by a screwdriver based on their drive type. If the securing member was a “Phillips”, “Hex”, “flathead” or another common screwdriver drive type screw serving the same function, a screwdriver would be used to fasten the securing member.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 3, Reedy does not explicitly disclose the counter-connector comprises retaining means configured to retain a ring on which a nut is tightened when it is screwed onto the second threaded portion, the retaining means is configured to capture the nut.
However, if a washer (ring) were to be put between the nut (132) and the tab (124) of the counter connector (110), it would retain the washer (ring) when the nut (132) is tightened.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reedy to provide the counter-connector comprising retaining means configured to retain a ring (washer) on which a nut is tightened when it is screwed onto the second threaded portion, the retaining means is configured to capture the nut. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a washer is typically used together with a nut when tightening it to another object and if a washer was used in the connector disclosed by Reedy it would be captured between the nut (132) and the tab (124).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy et al. [US 20230327374 A1] in view of Saitoh et al. [US 5139431 A].
Regarding Claim 13, Reedy discloses all the limitations of claim 1, Reedy does not explicitly disclose a seal inserted between the connector housing and the support, however the connector disclosed by Reedy is catered towards vibration resistance where it is a common practice to include a seal.
However, Saitoh discloses a seal (O-ring 67, Fig 5) inserted between a connector housing (52) and the support (68).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reedy as suggested by Saitoh to provide a seal inserted between the connector housing and the support. Doing so would protect the connector interface from environmental factors/damage as recognized by Saitoh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THASLIMUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm.
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, 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.
/THASLIMUR RAHMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights