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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30, as shown in figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --COMPACT SURFACE-MOUNTED HOUSING FOR HOUSING ELECTRICAL CONNECTORS--.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast et al. (10,784,624).
With regard to claim 1, Quast teaches, as shown in figures 1a-3b: “A compact surface-mounted housing 3, 100, and 5 comprising: an upper shell 100 and 3; and a lower shell 5, wherein the lower shell 5 comprises a lower cavity 51 and a lower connecting flange 52 for connection to the upper shell, two mounting flanges 55 arranged on a bottom of the lower shell 5, wherein each mounting flange 55 extends outward starting from opposite sides of a body (body of 5 in figure 3a) of the lower shell 5”.
Quast does not teach: “and two cable leadthroughs which are each arranged on the opposite sides of the body”. However, Quast teaches a cable leadthrough 56 on a side of the body. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cable leadthrough so there is one on an opposite side of the body in order to allow connection from different directions (Quast, column 3 lines 35-38). Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regard to claim 8, Quast teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Quast does not teach: “wherein the cable leadthroughs are designed in such a way that M20 to M40 cable terminals can be installed”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the leadthroughs for M20 to M40 cables to be installed in order to be able to use the connector with cable threading. Also, using M20 to M40 cable connectors is known in the art (see e.g. Chong, paragraph 37).
With regard to claim 9, Quast teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Quast also teaches, as shown in figures 1a-3b and taught in column 3 lines 35-38: “wherein the housing is designed as a bush housing”.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast et al. (10,784,624) in view of Zbriger et al. (2016/0141850).
With regard to claim 2, Quast teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Quast also teaches, as shown in figures 1a-3c: “wherein the upper shell 3 comprises an upper cavity (interior of 38 and 100 in figure 1b) which has… and an upper connecting flange 22, arranged on a bottom 100 of the upper shell, for connection to the lower connecting flange 52”.
Quast does not teach the upper cavity has “at the top of the upper shell, an upper mounting flange, a polygonal projection, which projects from the upper mounting flange”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zbriger teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 the upper cavity (interior of 20 in figure 2) has “at the top of the upper shell 20, an upper mounting flange (shown below), a polygonal projection (shown below), which projects from the upper mounting flange”.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Zbriger with the invention of Quast in order to secure connecting structure to the upper housing (Zbriger, paragraph 39).
With regard to claim 3, Quast as modified by Zbriger teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 2”, as shown above.
Quast also teaches, as shown in figures 1a-6a and taught in column 10 lines 57-64: “wherein the lower connecting flange 52 has a threaded opening 53 in each the lower connecting flanges 52 opposite sides, wherein two mutually opposite central threaded openings 222 provided within the upper cavity of the upper shell, wherein the central threaded openings 222 in the upper shell are aligned with the threaded openings 53 in the lower connecting flange 58 during assembly of the upper shell and the lower shell, wherein the upper shell and the lower shell are fixed to one another by a securing element 16”.
With regard to claim 5, Quast teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Quast does not teach: “wherein the two mounting flanges each comprise two mounting portions and a protective ground connection arranged between the two mounting flanges, which projects relative to the mounting portions wherein the protective ground connection has an opening for screwing in a protective ground screw in order to achieve protective grounding”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zbriger teaches, as shown in figures 2-11: “wherein the two mounting flanges (upper and lower ends of 14 in figure 9) each comprise two mounting portions (corners where 110 and 124 are located in figure 9) and a protective ground connection 116 arranged between the two mounting flanges, which projects relative to the mounting portions wherein the protective ground connection 116 has an opening 118 for screwing in a protective ground screw 119 in order to achieve protective grounding”. 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 Zbriger with the invention of Quast in order to provide grounding to the housing (Zbriger, paragraph 51).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast et al. (10,784,624) in view of Zbriger et al. (2016/0141850) and Egawa (2020/0212608).
With regard to claim 4, Quast as modified by Zbriger teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 2”, as shown above.
Neither Quast nor Zbriger teach: “wherein the upper connecting flange is provided with a sealing groove for the reception of a first sealing ring, and/or a sealing groove for the reception of a second sealing ring is arranged on a side wall of the polygonal projection”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Egawa teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the upper connecting flange (outer portion of 11 in figure 4) is provided with a sealing groove (where 28 is positioned in figure 4) for the reception of a first sealing ring 28, and/or a sealing groove for the reception of a second sealing ring is arranged on a side wall of the polygonal projection”. 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 Egawa with the invention of Quast as modified by Zbriger in order to prevent the intrusion of foreign substances (Egawa, paragraph 49).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast et al. (10,784,624) in view of Andersen et al. (2006/0086521).
With regard to claim 7, Quast teaches: “The compact surface-mounted housing as claimed in claim 1”, as shown above.
Quast does not teach: “wherein one of the cable leadthroughs can be closed”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Andersen teaches, as shown in figures 1-3: “wherein one of the cable leadthroughs 11 can be closed (shown in figure 1)”. 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 Andersen with the invention of Quast in order to seal the unused cable leadthrough (Andersen, paragraph 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
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
