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
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6 line 1, the phrase “claim 1” should read –claim 5--, since claim 6 introduces a second tool interface and/or gripping surface without a first tool interface and/or gripping surface, which is introduced in claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘2788 (DE20202788U1).
With regard to claim 1, ‘2788 teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “A plug connector 2 for forming a plug connection, comprising a sheath 1 which is designed to extend at least almost over an entire length of the plug connector 2 and to move relative to a contact carrier 3 of the plug connector 2, the sheath 1 having at least one opening 16 through which a plug connector cable 24 can be passed, which merges into at least one contact 20 provided on the contact carrier 3”.
With regard to claim 2, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 is designed as an adapter which can be placed on the plug connector 2 such that the sheath 1 fully encloses the plug connector 2”.
With regard to claim 4, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 is formed in one piece over the entire length of the plug connector 2”.
With regard to claim 5, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 comprises at least a first tool interface and/or gripping surface 12 at a first end (top end in figure 1) of the plug connector 2 which faces away from the contact 20”.
With regard to claim 6, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 comprises at least a second tool interface and/or gripping surface (interior surface of 14 in figure 1) at a second end (bottom end in figure 3A) of the plug connector 2 which faces the contact 20”.
With regard to claim 7, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 has a first guiding element 15 which is arranged on an inner side of the sheath 1 and which rotatably and/or displaceably rests against the contact carrier 3”.
With regard to claim 8, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 7”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 has at least one second guiding element (inner surface of 16 in figure 1) which is arranged on an inner side of the sheath 1 and which rotatably and/or displaceably rests against the contact carrier 3, wherein the first guiding element 15 and the second guiding element are arranged spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction (up-and-down direction in figure 1) of the plug connector 2”.
With regard to claim 9, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the sheath 1 has a connecting element (interior surface of 16 in figure 1) at a second end of the plug connector 2 which faces the contact 20”.
With regard to claim 10, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 9”, as shown above.
‘2788 also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9A: “wherein the connecting element is an internal thread or an external thread or a push-pull connector”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘2788 (DE20202788U1).
With regard to claim 3, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 does not specifically teach: “wherein the sheath is designed in several parts, so that several sheath parts are provided which can be coupled to each other”. However, ‘2788 teaches forming an outer portion 3 in two pieces 30 and 31 that can be coupled together. 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 sheath in two pieces that can be coupled together in order to assemble and disassemble the sheath around the plug connector. Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘2788 (DE20202788U1) in view of Ramos et al. (2014/0256166).
With regard to claim 11, ‘2788 teaches: “The plug connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
‘2788 does not teach: “comprising a sealing element which is fixedly arranged on the contact carrier and is designed to connect the contact carrier in a sealing manner to the plug connector cable, the sealing element being arranged at least partially inside the movable sheath”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ramos teaches, as shown in figures 2-3: “comprising a sealing element 110 which is fixedly arranged on the contact carrier 145 and is designed to connect the contact carrier 145 in a sealing manner to the plug connector cable 150, the sealing element 110 being arranged at least partially inside the movable sheath 115”. 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 Ramos with the invention of ‘2788 in order to provide waterproofing (Ramos, paragraph 25).
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
