DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 8/5/2024.
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)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both the “forward stop surface” and the “rearward stop surface” in figure 4. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “equivalent acute angle” of claim 7, and the “edges of the second catches” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “in which a portion of the attachment section may be disposed”. It is unclear whether the recited portion of the attachment section is required to be disposed within the gap. The use of “may” appears to make the recited positional relationship optional, thereby creating uncertainty as to the scope of the claim.
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) 13, 14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yazaki (JP 6940345, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025).
Regarding claim 13, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) a method of assembling a right-angled connector, comprising: inserting a right-angled terminal (7) configured to be attached to a conductor (41) into a terminal cavity (3) of a connector housing (5) along an insertion direction, the connector housing (5) comprising a forward stop surface (front surface of 5 that contacts 33 in figure 2; see figure 5; ¶0060 – ¶0061) bordering the terminal cavity (3); attaching a cover (9) configured to enclose the terminal cavity (3) to the connector housing (5) along the insertion direction (¶0022), the cover (9) defining a rearward stop surface (13) configured to retain the right-angled terminal (7) within the terminal cavity (3); and disposing a portion of the right-angled terminal (7) between the forward stop surface and the rearward stop surface (see figures 2 and 5; ¶0060 – ¶0061).
Regarding claim 14, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 13, wherein the right-angled terminal (7) comprises a connection section (35) configured to interface with a corresponding terminal along a connection axis (¶0043) and an attachment section (33) configured to be attached to a conductor (41) and wherein the connection axis is substantially parallel to the insertion direction (i.e. see figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 13, wherein the method further comprises biasing right-angled terminal (7) against the forward stop surface (front surface of 5 that contacts 33 in figure 2; see figure 5; ¶0060 – ¶0061) using a spring element (11) defined by the right-angled terminal (7).
Regarding claim 20, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 13, wherein the right-angled terminal (7) is an electrical terminal (¶0040), and the conductor (41) is an electrical conductor (¶0040).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki (JP 6940345, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) a right-angled connector, comprising:
a connector housing (5) having a forward stop surface (front surface of 5 that contacts 33 in figure 2; see figure 5; ¶0060 – ¶0061), the forward stop surface configured to retain a right-angled terminal (7) within a terminal cavity (3) in the connector housing (5), the right-angled terminal (7) having a connection section (35) configured to interface with a corresponding terminal along a connection axis (¶0043) and an attachment section (33) configured to be attached to a conductor (41); and
a cover (9) attached to the connector housing (5), the cover (9) configured to enclose the terminal cavity (3) and defining a rearward stop surface (13) configured to retain the right-angled terminal (7) within the terminal cavity (3), the forward and rearward stop surfaces configured to limit motion of the connection section along the connection axis to less than 0.5 mm (¶0067 – ¶0068).
Yazaki teaches that the movement of the terminal within the terminal accommodating chamber can result in rattling of the terminal and generation of abnormal noise, and provides the backlash filling arrangement to suppress such movement and rattling of the terminal. Although Yazaki does not expressly disclose that the movement of the connection section is limited to less than 0.5 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the forward and rearward stop surfaces to limit movement to less than 0.5 mm in order to restrict movement of the connection section and thereby prevent rattling and generation of abnormal noise, as taught by Yazaki in ¶0067 – ¶0068. The amount of permissible movement is a result effective parameter that would have been optimized through routine experimentation according to the desired degree of movement restriction. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 1, the forward and rearward stop surfaces cooperate to limit motion of the connection section along the connection axis to 0 mm (¶0067 – ¶0068).
Yazaki teaches that the movement of the terminal within the terminal accommodating chamber can result in rattling of the terminal and generation of abnormal noise, and provides the backlash filling arrangement to suppress such movement and rattling of the terminal. Although Yazaki does not expressly disclose that the movement of the connection section is limited to 0 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the forward and rearward stop surfaces to limit movement to 0 mm in order to restrict movement of the connection section and thereby prevent rattling and generation of abnormal noise, as taught by Yazaki in ¶0067 – ¶0068. The amount of permissible movement is a result effective parameter that would have been optimized through routine experimentation according to the desired degree of movement restriction. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 1, wherein the cover (9) defines first latching arms (51) and second latching arms (see second 51) that are configured to attach the cover (9) to the connector housing (5) by engaging first catches (53) and second catches (see second 53) defined by the connector housing (5).
Regarding claim 6, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 5, wherein the first latching arms (51) and the second latching arms (see second 51) each define an opening (see openings in 51 in figure 6) in which the first catches (53) and the second catches (see second 53) are received.
Regarding claim 10, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 1, wherein the right-angled terminal (7) comprises a spring element (11) configured to bias the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface (¶0060 – ¶0061).
Regarding claim 11, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 1, wherein the right-angled terminal (7) is an electrical terminal (¶0040), and the conductor (41) is an electrical conductor (¶0040).
Regarding claim 15, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 14, wherein the forward stop surface (front surface of 5 that contacts 33 in figure 2; see figure 5; ¶0060 – ¶0061) and the rearward stop surface (13) cooperate to limit motion of the connection section along the connection axis to less than 0.5 mm (¶0067 – ¶0068).
Yazaki teaches that the movement of the terminal within the terminal accommodating chamber can result in rattling of the terminal and generation of abnormal noise, and provides the backlash filling arrangement to suppress such movement and rattling of the terminal. Although Yazaki does not expressly disclose that the movement of the connection section is limited to less than 0.5 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the forward and rearward stop surfaces to limit movement to less than 0.5 mm in order to restrict movement of the connection section and thereby prevent rattling and generation of abnormal noise, as taught by Yazaki in ¶0067 – ¶0068. The amount of permissible movement is a result effective parameter that would have been optimized through routine experimentation according to the desired degree of movement restriction. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki (JP 6940345, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025) in view of Ramari (EP 0945931, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 1.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the forward and rearward stop surfaces form a gap in which a portion of the attachment section may be disposed.
Ramari teaches (figures 1 – 14, annotation) a connector wherein the forward (see annotation) and rearward stop surfaces (see annotation) form a gap (see annotation) in which a portion of the attachment section (section attaching C3 in figure 1) may be disposed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Ramari to provide wherein the forward and rearward stop surfaces form a gap in which a portion of the attachment section may be disposed, in order to provide clearance for the attachment section between the stop surfaces while allowing the stop surfaces to limit movement of the attachment section along the connection axis.
~ Please see annotation of figure 1 in the Ramari reference, where the forward stop surface, the rearward stop surface, and the gap can be seen.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the cover (9) of the connector according to claim 1.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover is configured to provide strain relief for the attachment section.
Ramari teaches (figures 1 – 14) a connector wherein the cover (40) is configured to provide strain relief for the attachment section (via 58, see figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Ramari to provide wherein the cover is configured to provide strain relief for the attachment section, to improve the mechanical stability of the right-angle terminal.
Regarding claim 12, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) a conductor (41) and a right-angled terminal (7) configured to terminate the conductor (41).
But Yazaki does not expressly disclose wherein the conductor is a coaxial electrical cable, and the right-angled terminal is configured to terminate the coaxial electrical cable.
However, Ramari teaches (figures 1 – 2, 14b) wherein the conductor (C) is a coaxial electrical cable (C is a coaxial cable), and the right-angled terminal (20; see figure 14b) is configured to terminate the coaxial electrical cable (C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki such that the cable terminated by the right-angle terminal is a coaxial electrical cable, as taught by Ramari, because Ramari teaches terminating a coaxial electrical cable with a right-angle terminal as seen in figure 14b. Using the coaxial cable of Ramari in the cable termination arrangement of Yazaki would have been a predictable use of a known cable type for transmitting electrical signals.
Regarding claim 16, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 14.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the forward stop surface and the rearward stop surface form a gap and wherein the method further comprises disposing a portion of the attachment section within the gap.
Ramari teaches (figures 1 – 14, annotation) a connector wherein the forward stop surface (i.e. see annotation) and the rearward stop surface (i.e. see annotation) form a gap (i.e. see annotation) and wherein the method further comprises disposing a portion of the attachment section (section attaching C3 in figure 1) within the gap (i.e. see annotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Ramari to provide wherein the forward stop surface and the rearward stop surface form a gap and wherein the method further comprises disposing a portion of the attachment section within the gap, in order to provide clearance for the attachment section between the stop surfaces while allowing the stop surfaces to limit movement of the attachment section along the connection axis.
Claim(s) 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki (JP 6940345, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025) in view of Shinji (US 5554051, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the cover (9) of the connector according to claim 1.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover comprises a spring element configured to bias the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface.
Shinji teaches (figure 2) a connector wherein the cover (8) comprises a spring element (9) configured to bias the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface (see figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Shinji to provide wherein the cover comprises a spring element configured to bias the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface, as Shinji teaches flexible locking arms (9) that engage the terminal and urges the terminal, thereby applying a biasing force to the terminal. Modifying such resilient element to the invention of Yazaki would have provided a predictable means for maintaining the terminal against the forward stop surface and limiting the movement of the terminal relative to the housing.
Regarding claim 17, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the cover (9) and the right angle terminal (7) of the method according to claim 13.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises biasing the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface using a spring element defined by the cover.
Shinji teaches (figure 2) wherein the method further comprises biasing the right-angled terminal (2) against the forward stop surface (see figure 2) using a spring element (9) defined by the cover (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Shinji to provide biasing the right-angled terminal against the forward stop surface using a spring element defined by the cover, as Shinji teaches flexible locking arms (9) that engage the terminal and urges the terminal, thereby applying a biasing force to the terminal. Modifying such resilient element to the invention of Yazaki would have provided a predictable means for maintaining the terminal against the forward stop surface and limiting the movement of the terminal relative to the housing.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki (JP 6940345, cited in the IDS on 2/5/2025) in view of Worth (US 4669801).
Regarding claim 7, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 6.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein edges of the openings in the second latching arms define an acute angle and edges of the second catches substantially define an equivalent acute angle.
Worth teaches (figures 4, 7 – 12) a connector wherein edges (132) of the openings (see opening in figure 11) in the second latching arms (112) define an acute angle (see angle of edge 132) and edges of the second catches (70 in figure 3) substantially define an equivalent acute angle (see acute angle in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Worth to provide wherein edges of the openings in the second latching arms define an acute angle and edges of the second catches substantially define an equivalent acute angle, as Worth teaches that the design of their connector provides a sturdy structure capable of withstanding disconnection forces.
Regarding claim 8, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the connector according to claim 7.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the acute angle is within a range of 80 to 85 degrees.
Worth teaches (figures 4, 7 – 12) a connector wherein the acute angle (see angle of edge 132) is within a range of 80 to 85 degrees.
Although Worth does not quantify the acute angles being in a range of 80 to 85 degrees, it would have been obvious to modify the latch arrangement of Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Worth to provide wherein the acute angle is within a range of 80 to 85 degrees. Worth demonstrates that providing an acute angled edge on a latch for engagement with corresponding catches was known in the art for retaining connector components in the latched state. Selecting a particular acute angle for cooperating the latch and catches surfaces, including an angle within the range of 80 to 85 degrees, would have been a matter of routine design optimization to obtain a suitable engagement and retention between the latch and catches. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Yazaki teaches (figures 1 – 8) the method according to claim 13, wherein the cover (9) defines first latching arms (51) and second latching arms (see second 51) that are configured to attach the cover (9) to the connector housing (5) by engaging first catches (53) and second catches (see second 53) defined by the connector housing (5), wherein the first latching arms (51) and the second latching arms (see second 51) each define an opening (see openings in 51 in figure 6) in which the first catches (53) and the second catches (see second 53) are disposed.
But Yazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein edges of the openings in the second latching arms define an acute angle and edges of the second catches substantially define an equivalent acute angle.
Worth teaches (figures 4, 7 – 12) a connector wherein edges (132) of the openings (see opening in figure 11) in the second latching arms (112) define an acute angle (see angle of edge 132) and edges of the second catches (70 in figure 3) substantially define an equivalent acute angle (see acute angle in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yazaki with the connector as disclosed by Worth to provide wherein edges of the openings in the second latching arms define an acute angle and edges of the second catches substantially define an equivalent acute angle, as Worth teaches that the design of their connector provides a sturdy structure capable of withstanding disconnection forces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
