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 .
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 1-5, 9-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TUCHEL IND GMPH (DE 10 2019 101822) hereafter Tuchel (as listed in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tuchel, discloses a grounding module 130 which is to be received in a metal plug connector modular frame 10, 11 and which grounds the same by electrically conductive connection of the plug connector modular frame to a grounding line 140 (see paragraph [0020], wherein the grounding module 130 comprises: a housing (fig. 2), which has one or more fixing devices 12, 133 for fixing the grounding module 130 in the plug connector modular frame 10, 11(see paragraph [0032] and fig. 5; and a busbar 101’, arranged in the housing, for the mechanical and electrical contacting of said grounding line 140 (see [0028], figs. 3 and 4); a clamping spring 110 arranged at least partially in the housing and having a clamping leg 111 for pressing and clamping the grounding line 140 inserted or to be inserted against the busbar 101’; and a contact spring 101, which is connected in an electrically conductive manner to the busbar 101’ (being an integral piece) and is passed out of the housing 10 to an outer side of the housing 10 in order to contact the metal plug connector modular frame 10, 11 in an electrically conductive manner, wherein both the busbar 101’ and the clamping spring 101 and the contact spring 101 are jointly part of a single, one-piece grounding element 100 (see paragraph [0019] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tuchel discloses the grounding clement consists of spring-elastic sheet metal.
Regarding claim 3, Tuchel discloses the grounding element is a stamped and bent part.
Regarding claim 4, Tuchel discloses the housing has a cuboidal basic shape with at least four outer sides, including two narrow sides, which run parallel to one another, and two broad sides, which run at right angles to the narrow sides and connect the narrow sides to one another.
Regarding claim 5, Tuchel discloses the housing has two further outer sides, including a cable connection side and a plug-in side, which are arranged opposite one another at right angles to the narrow sides and the broad side.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tuchel discloses the housing has on its cable connection (top) side (fig. 2), a top-mounted part 131, which has a cable insertion opening 131 (figs 2, 3) for the insertion of the grounding line 140, 140’.
Regarding claim 10, Tuchel discloses the top-mounted part additionally has an actuation opening 134 for the insertion of a tool for separating the clamping leg from the grounding line and thus for releasing the grounding line from the busbar.
Regarding claim 11, Tuchel discloses the grounding module additionally has a plug-in contact which is connected in an electrically conductive manner to the busbar 141 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Tuchel discloses the clamping spring 100 is connected in an electrically conductive manner to the busbar 141 via a connecting portion (see fig. 1), wherein the connecting portion has a through opening 120 as a fastening opening for the plug-in contact (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Tuchel discloses the housing 10 consists at least partially of plastic (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Tuchel discloses the housing consists at least partially of metal (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, Tuchel discloses a plug connector modular system, having at least the grounding module as claimed in claim 1 and a plug connector modular frame 10, 11, wherein the plug connector modular frame is of substantially rectangular design in cross section, having, two end faces situated opposite and parallel to one another and, at right angles thereto, two side parts situated opposite and parallel to one another, wherein a flange is formed integrally on the end faces, in each case projecting at right angles thereto, wherein each of these two flanges (see fig. 5) has two through openings as screw openings (for screw 13), with the result that the plug connector modular frame has a total of four screw openings (see fig. 5), at which it can be screwed into or onto a metal plug connector housing for the purpose of fastening and establishing electrical contact, wherein the grounding module 130 is received or at least can be received in the plug connector modular frame and, establishes electrical contact with this plug connector modular frame using its contact spring 101 in the received state, wherein the grounding module 130 is configured to press the grounding line against the busbar 101’ using its clamping spring 110 in order in this way to establish an electrically conductive connection between the grounding line 140 and the metal plug connector housing.
Regarding claim 16, Tuchel discloses the plug connector modular system has one or more identical and/or different additional plug connector modules, which are received or at least can be received in the plug connector modular frame (see fig. 5).
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 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuchel.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Tuchel discloses said one or more fixing means devices 12, are two latching projections 12,
However, Tuchel fails to disclose each of (the latching projection) which is formed integrally on one of the two narrow sides of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the latching projection is formed integrally on one of the two narrow sides of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each of the latching projection is formed integrally on one of the two narrow sides of the housing, since applicant has not disclose that each of the latching projection is formed integrally on one of the two narrow sides of the housing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (this feature is a critical, patentably distinguishing feature)and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with each of the latching projection is formed integrally on one of the two linger (broader) sides of the housing.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Tuchel fails to disclose the two latching projections differ from one another in size and/or shape in order to ensure the correct polarization of the grounding module in the plug connector modular frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two latching projections differ from one another in size and/or shape in order to ensure the correct polarization of the grounding module in the plug connector modular frame.
It would have been obvious to the two latching projections differ from one another in size and/or shape in order to ensure the correct polarization of the grounding module in the plug connector modular frame. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to have foolproof assembly process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose or teaches the contact spring extends along the first broad side of the housing, coming from the direction of the cable connection side and running in an S shape in the direction of the plug-in side, with the result that the distance between the contact spring and the first broad side varies, in order to establish electrical contact externally between the plug connector modular frame and a contact region of the spring arm when the grounding module is inserted into said frame as required in combination of other limitations of this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (EST).
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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights