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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In paragraph [0029], “the branch line 2” mislabels the reference number of the branch line as 2 instead of 1.
In paragraph [0029], “the second shell 44” mislabels the reference number of the second shell as 44 instead of 4.
In paragraph [0034], “the short handle portion 43” mislabels the reference number of the short handle portion as 43 instead of 42.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of said first spacer bars” and “a plurality of said second spacer bars” should read “a plurality of first spacer bars” and “a plurality of second space bars”. Although the use of “said” can create a lack of antecedent basis issue, the claim is objected to because the meaning of the claim is clear and only needs minor correction.
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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “by means of a spindle” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-11 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 term “sharp” in claims 1, 9, and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sharp” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In order to expedite prosecution, the term “sharp” is construed as how it might be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
All claims that depend from claim 1 are rejected under 112 because they depend from a rejected parent claim.
Claims 3-6 and 11 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.
Claim 3 states that the buckle head and buckle socket are arranged on the first shell and second shell respectively. However, figures 2 and 4 show the buckle head on the second shell and the buckle socket on the first shell.
For the purpose of examination, we are considering the buckle head to be on the second shell and the buckle socket on the first shell, as shown in the drawings.
All claims that depend from claim 3 are rejected under 112 because they depend from a rejected parent claim.
Claims 4, 5, and 11 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.
Claim 4 is rendered unclear through its dependency on claim 3, where it is interpreted that the buckle head is arranged on the second shell and the buckle socket arranged on the first shell. Claim 4 further indicates that the buckle head or the buckle socket is arranged on the second handle portion. it is unclear how the buckle socket can be on the second handle of the L shaped shell (second shell) when claim 3 is interpreted to have the buckle socket on the first shell, as shown in the figures.
For the purpose of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to claim: wherein the first shell and the second shell are respectively configured as a quasi-rectangular shell and an L-shaped shell, the L-shaped shell comprises a first handle portion and a second handle portion shorter than the first handle portion, an end of the first handle portion is rotatably connected to an end of the quasi-rectangular shell, the buckle head is arranged on a side wall, close to the first handle portion, of the second handle portion, and the buckle socket is arranged on a side wall, close to the second handle portion, of the quasi-rectangular shell.
All claims that depend from claim 4 are rejected under 112 because they depend from a rejected parent 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yagi (US 5727965 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) for a main line (WM), being used for connecting a branch line (WS) and the main line in a circuit system, the branch connector comprising:
a first shell (5) providing a groove (15) for receiving the main line;
and a second shell (7) rotatably connected to the first shell (Col. 3, lines 41-45; wherein second half 7 is connected to first half 5 by hinges 17);
wherein a plurality of mutually insulated piercing pieces (13) are arranged on the first shell or the second shell (wherein second half 7 accommodates pieces 13), and each of the piercing pieces has one end connected to the branch line and another end configured as a sharp piercing head used for piercing through an insulation layer of the main line (Col. 4, lines 24-33; Fig. 5a; wherein connectors 13 have conductive contacts 13b connected to the branch line WS and conductive contacts 13a piercing main line WM) when the first shell and the second shell are buckled together (Col. 4, lines 40-42; wherein halves 5 and 7 are held together with hooks 31 on 7 and engaging portions 33 on 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (US 5727965 A) in view of Riccardi (US 20170012374 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) with a first shell (5) and second shell (7), rotatably connected (hinges 17) and having a buckle structure (wherein hooks 31 buckle with engaging portions 33).
Yagi does not teach a spindle.
However, Riccardi teaches in figure 1 a first shell (2) and second shell (8) rotatably connected with a spindle ([0041]; wherein pivot pin 9 passes through matching openings in shells 2 and 8 to rotatably connect them).
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 the branch connector shells of Yagi to be rotatably connected by a spindle, in order to provide an easily-assembled and secure method of rotation.
Regarding claim 3, Yagi teaches in figure 1 that the buckle structure comprises a buckle head (31) and a buckle socket (33) matched with the buckle head, and the buckle head and the buckle socket are arranged on the first shell and the second shell respectively (wherein 31 and 33 are arranged on 5 and 7 when in a buckled state).
Regarding claim 6, Yagi teaches in figure 1 that the buckle socket (33) and the buckle head (31) are respectively arranged on opposite surfaces of the first shell and the second shell which are buckled together (wherein 31 and 33 are arranged on opposite surfaces of the first half 5 and second half 7 which are held together).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (US 5727965 A) in view of Riccardi (US 20170012374 A1) as applied to claims 2, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Quiter (EP 2509159).
Regarding claim 4, a modified Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) with a first shell (5) configured as a quasi-rectangular shell and a second shell (7), rotatably connected (hinges 17) and having a buckle head (hooks 31) on the second shell and a buckle socket (engaging portions 33) on the first shell.
A modified Yagi does not teach that the second shell is L-shaped with a first handle portion and second handle portion shorter than the first handle portion.
However, Quiter teaches in figure 5 a quasi-rectangular first shell (10) and L-shaped second shell (20) with a first handle portion and a second handle portion shorter than the first handle portion, wherein an end of the first handle portion is rotatably connected to the end of the quasi-rectangular shell ([0040] in translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a modified Yagi to have the L-shaped second shell of Quiter, in order to provide a more secure second shell connection to the branch connector.
Regarding claim 5, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1).
Yagi does not teach a tail section of the second handle portion defines a cutout.
However, Quiter teaches in figure 5 a tail section of the second handle portion defines a cutout (wherein second shell 20 has a U-shaped cutout on the second handle portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second shell of a modified Yagi as L-shaped with a second handle portion and cutout, in order to provide an opening for a cable to be secured in the connector.
Regarding claim 11, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) with a second shell (7).
Yagi does not teach a U-shaped slot is defined in a middle of the second handle portion of the second shell for holding the branch line.
However, Quiter teaches in figure 5 a U-shaped slot is defined in a middle of the second handle portion of the second shell (20) for holding the branch line (Quiter translation [0055]; where U-shaped slot 53 is an opening for a cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second shell of a modified Yagi as L-shaped with a second handle portion and a U-shaped slot for holding the branch line, in order to provide an opening for a cable to be secured in the connector.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (US 5727965 A) in view of Wang (US 9543699 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) with a first shell (5) with a groove (15) and a second shell (7).
Yagi does not teach a plurality of first spacer bars arranged in the groove of the first shell and a plurality of second spacer bars arranged at positions, corresponding to the first spacer bars, of the second shell.
However, Wang teaches in figure 4 a plurality of first spacer bars (194) arranged in the groove (180) of the first shell (120) and a plurality of second spacer bars (192) arranged at positions, corresponding to the first spacer bars, of the second shell (150; Col. 4, lines 64-68 and Col. 5, lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first and second shell of Yagi to include the spacers of Wang, in order to more securely accommodate the cable in the opening.
Regarding claim 8, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1).
Yagi does not teach one first spacer bar and one second spacer bar are arranged, or three first spacer bars and three second spacer bars are arranged.
However, Wang teaches one first spacer bar and one second spacer bar are arranged, or three first spacer bars and three second spacer bars are arranged (Col. 4, lines 64-68 and Col. 5, lines 1-11; wherein a plurality of spacers are stated to be provided, which encompasses three first spacer bars and three second spacer bars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shells of Yagi with a plurality of spacer bars in order to provide a secure connection to the cable in the opening.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (US 5727965 A) in view of Bishop (US 8758041 B2) and in view of Tsukamoto (US 10525906 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1) with piercing pieces (13) and a branch line (WS).
Yagi does not teach that the ends of the piercing pieces are arranged on a PCB.
However, Bishop teaches in figure 1 that the ends of the piercing pieces (16) are arranged on a PCB (10; Col. 3 lines 10-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the branch connector of Yagi to include a PCB to create a compact design and reduce electrical noise in the connector.
Yagi as modified by Bishop does not teach that the PCB is connected to the branch line.
However, Tsukamoto teaches in figure 18 that the PCB (60) is connected to the branch line (where pins 46 on trunk lines 21 connected to the PCB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the branch line to the PCB of Yagi as modified by Bishop, in order to create a branch connection including a PCB to create a compact design and reduce electrical noise in the connector.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi (US 5727965 A) in view of Bishop (US 8758041 B2) and in view of Tsukamoto (US 10525906 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hata (US 20210098899 A1).
Regarding claim 10, a modified Yagi teaches in figure 1 a branch connector (1).
Yagi does not teach that the sharp piercing heads are configured as V-shaped structures.
However, Hata teaches in figure 1 that the sharp piercing heads are configured as V-shaped structures ([0065]; wherein relay contacts 50 pierce the insulation with V-shaped heads 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Yagi branch connector to include V-shaped piercing heads, in order to provide a sharp head to effectively pierce the insulation of the lines.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Stremersch (US 20210305726 A1), Grywok (DE 19838423 A1), and Chang (US 20140273605 A1).
Stremersch teaches a wire and connection configuration electrically connected to a PCB, including piercing heads.
Grywok teaches a branch connector and cables with two shells rotatably connected and sharp insulation piercing heads.
Chang teaches a connector with two shells rotatably connected and insulation piercing heads, as well as a circuit board.
The above references are considered of particular relevance to the claimed invention but cannot
be considered to teach the limitations or combined to being obvious to a person skilled in the art to
disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0134. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th/F 7:30-5:00.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights