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 .
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shepherd (GB811,358; hereinafter ‘Shepherd’).
Regarding claim 1, Shepherd discloses a cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) for an electrical connector, comprising:
an outer shell (at least 1; as seen in at least figs. 1-4); and
a plurality of strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15; as seen in at least figs.1-4) circumferentially distributed around a center axis (not numbered but seen in at least figs. 2 and 3 around cable 27) within the outer shell (as seen in at least fig 3),
wherein each of the strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) comprises
a gripper body (at the end of the arms where the bulges 18, 19 are located; as seen in at least figs. 1-4) having an inwardly convex gripping surface (at least bulges 18, 19; as seen in at least figs. 1-4);
a plurality of gripping teeth (at least 20’ as seen in at least figs. 1-4) formed in the gripping surface (at least 18, 19); and
a resilient pivot arm (not numbered, but as seen in at least fig. 1 as the slender neck holding the bulge), about which the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) can pivot forwardly and rearwardly (as seen between figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 2, Shepherd discloses the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 1, further comprising an annular gripper base (at least 5; as seen in at least figs. 1 and 3); and a plurality of circumferentially distributed support arms (at the gripper base where the slender necks attach) extending rearwardly parallel to the center axis from the annular gripper base (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 3); wherein one of the strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) is connected to a rear end of each of the support arms (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Shepherd discloses the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 2, wherein the rear ends of the circumferentially distributed support arms abut an inner wall (of 1) of the outer shell (as seen in at least figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Shepherd discloses the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 2, further comprising a strain relief body (at 11, as seen in at least figs. 1-3) having an annular groove (threads), wherein the annular gripper base (5), the support arms, and the strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are integrally formed as one piece (as seen in at least fig. 1), and wherein the annular gripper base (5) is arranged within the annular groove (threads) of the strain relief body (at 11).
Regarding claim 8, Shepherd discloses the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 1, wherein the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) is configured to pivot back and forth about a pivot point (as illustrated in at least fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of gripping teeth includes a rearmost tooth arranged at a first distance from the pivot point, an intermediate tooth arranged at a second distance from the pivot point, and a frontmost tooth arranged at a third distance from the pivot point, wherein the first distance is smaller than the second distance, and wherein the second distance is smaller than the third distance (whilst this is not separately labelled in Shepherd, one having ordinary skill in the art would infer the limitations from figs. 1-3).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Doyle (US 4,191,443; hereinafter ‘Doyle’).
Regarding claim 5, Shepherd discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Shepherd does not specifically disclose anti-twist protrusion.
Doyle teaches a cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 3a-3d) having an anti-twist protrusion (123b) extending radially inwardly from the annular gripper base (110), the anti-twist protrusion being seated within a radial groove extension of the annular groove (as seen in at least fig. 3d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Doyle’s anti-twist protrusion extending radially inwardly from Shepherd’s annular gripper base (5), the anti-twist protrusion being seated within a radial groove extension of the annular groove.
One would have been motivated to so to prevent undesired loosening of the connection.
Regarding claim 6, Shepherd discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Shepherd does not specifically disclose external threads.
Doyle teaches a similar cable gland (as seen in at least figs 3a-3d) as in claim 4, wherein the strain relief body (at least 110a) comprises an external threaded sleeve (110a) configured to mesh an internal thread of a plug housing (130), and a further external thread (110) which meshes with an internal thread of the outer shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make Shepherd’s strain relief body (at 11) with Doyle’s an external threaded sleeve configured to mesh an internal thread of a plug housing (Doyle’s 130), and a further external thread which meshes with an internal thread of the outer shell.
One would have been motivated to do so to allow for a person to securely attach the device to a desired support easily and allow for removal in case of repair need.
Regarding claim 7, Shepherd, as modified by Doyle above, discloses the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 6, wherein the annular gripper base (5) is axially arranged within the further external thread (503) of the strain relief body (at 11).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd.
Regarding claim 9, Shepherd discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Shepherd further teaches the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 1, wherein two of the strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are arranged on opposite sides of the center axis (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3).
However, Shepherd does not specifically teach wherein a width of a cable jacket opening (between two diametrically opposed arms) between the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) increases when the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are pivoted forwardly and wherein the width of the cable jacket opening (625) decreases when the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are pivoted rearwardly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to assume two of Shepherd’s strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are arranged on opposite sides of the center axis (as seen in at least figs. 2 and 3), wherein a width of a cable jacket opening (between two diametrically opposed arms) between the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) increases when the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are pivoted forwardly and wherein the width of the cable jacket opening (between two diametrically opposed arms) decreases when the two strain relief grippers (at least 12, 13, 14, 15) are pivoted rearwardly.
One would have been motivated to assume so based on the similarity in the shapes of both Shepherd and the instant applications gripper bulges.
Regarding claims 10-12, Shepherd discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Shepherd does not specifically teach the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) extends perpendicular to the center axis (claim 10); the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) is asymmetrically supported at its rear end by the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) (claim 11); or a mass center of the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) is arranged forwardly of the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) (claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shepherd’s resilient pivot arm such that the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) extends perpendicular to the center axis (claim 10); the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) is asymmetrically supported at its rear end by the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) (claim 11); or a mass center of the gripper body (arm end at bulges 18, 19) is arranged forwardly of the resilient pivot arm (slender neck) (claim 12).
One would have been motivated to do so as such an arrangement only involves routine skill in the art and, furthermore, the positioning would provide an inward/towards axis pressure on Shepherd’s gripper arms providing additional security in the support of the cable gland.
Regarding claim 13, Shepherd discloses the claimed invention as indicated above.
Shepherd does not specifically disclose a housing having a threaded cable entry opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make Shepherd’s cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) as in claim 1 screwed into the threaded cable entry opening, and a cable (27) extending through the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4), wherein the gripping teeth (at least 20) engage a jacket of the cable (28), such that a rearward movement of the cable (27) within the cable gland (as seen in at least figs. 1-4) causes the gripper bodies (arm end at bulges 18, 19) to pivot rearwardly and thereby causes the gripping teeth (at least 20) to bite increasingly deeper into the jacket.
One would have been motivated to do so as such a modification would have been within the routine skill of one in the art to provide secure, yet adjustable connection points for a secure cable gland.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited as teaching at least a cable gland with gripping teeth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH S MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2719. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx 8:30am to 4:30pm.
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 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.
/LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
