Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 26, 2026
Application No. 18/891,600

ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Priority
Oct 10, 2023 — DE 10 2023 127 648.4
Examiner
HARCUM, MARCUS E
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Harting Stiftung & Co. KG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
522 granted / 584 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
614
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 584 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 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, at least one electrical transmission line which has two ends, namely a first end and a second end, as well as a plug connector connected to the transmission line at the first end and a further plug connector connected to the transmission line at the second end and wherein the transmission line has at least one electrical conductor, which is mechanically and electrically conductively connected to the first cable connection area on the one hand and to a further plug contact of the further plug connector on the other hand of claim 1; and claim 6 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 Claims 1, 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 lines 11-13 and 19 recite, “the first cable connection area,” “the one hand,” “the other hand,” and, “the operating state,” claim should be amended to recite –the cable connection area--, --one hand--, --another hand--, and –an operating state--. Claim 4 line 14 recites, “the plug area,” claim should be amended to recite –the plug-in area--. Claim 11 lines 2-3 recite, “the attachment,” the claim should be amended to recite –an attachment--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcath et al. US9774179 in view of Ma US2018/0109046. Regarding claim 1, Marcath discloses an electrical transmission device, in particular for computing servers, having at least one electrical transmission line (fig. 1; 14) which has an end (end connected to 10), as well as a plug connector (fig. 1; 10) connected to the transmission line (14) at the first end (end connected to 10), -wherein the plug connector (10) has at least one contact carrier (fig.3; interior space of 10) and at least one plug contact (fig. 3; 22, 24, 26), wherein the plug contact (22, 24, 26) has a cable connection area (24) and a plug-in area (22), and wherein the transmission line (14) has at least one electrical conductor (fig. 4; 68), which is mechanically and electrically conductively connected to the first cable connection area (24) on the one hand, wherein the contact carrier (interior space of 10) has at least one contact receptacle (fig. 4; 54, 56), in which the at least one plug contact (26, of 22, 24, 26) is arranged, wherein the plug contact (22, 24, 26) has a multi-part design and its plug-in area (22) is separate from its cable connection area (24), wherein the plug-in area (22), in the operating state, is electrically conductively connected to the cable connection area (24), wherein the transmission device (fig. 1) is configured to disconnect the aforementioned electrical connection between the plug-in area (22) and the cable connection area (24) in the event of a possible fault (Col 5 Ln 29-32; blown fuse is the disconnection). Marcath does not disclose transmission line with two ends, namely a first end and a second end, and a further plug connector connected to the transmission line at the second end, the electrical conductor mechanically and electrically connected to a further plug contact of the further plug connector on the other hand. However, Ma teaches transmission line with two ends (fig. 1b; 300), namely a first end (end of 300 connected to unmarked connector) and a second end (end of 300 connected to 100), and a further plug connector (100) connected to the transmission line (300) at the second end, the electrical conductor (conductor of 300) mechanically and electrically connected to a further plug contact (fig. 1b; 140) of the further plug connector (100) on the other hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transmission line with two ends, namely a first end and a second end, and a further plug connector connected to the transmission line at the second end, the electrical conductor mechanically and electrically connected to a further plug contact of the further plug connector on the other hand as suggested by Ma for the benefit of providing an improved interconnected system that has optimized overload protection. Regarding claim 2, Marcath modified by Ma has been discussed above. Marcath discloses wherein said separation (blown fuse is the disconnection) of the electrical connection between the plug-in area (22) and the cable connection area (24) is irreversible. Regarding claim 3, Marcath modified by Ma has been discussed above. Marcath discloses wherein the plug contact (22, 24, 26) has an electrical fuse (26) arranged between the cable connection area (24) and the plug-in area (22) and electrically connecting the cable connection area (24) to the plug-in area (22) in the operating state. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcath et al. US9774179 and Ma US2018/0109046 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Curtis US2644056. Marcath and Ma disclose (Marcath) wherein the electrical fuse (26) has the following: which has two ends (fig. 4; ends of 26 that connect to 24 and 22), namely a cable-connection-side end (end of 26 that connect to 24) and a plug-in end (end of 26 that connect to 22), the cable-connection-side end (end of 26 that connect to 24) which is mechanically and electrically connected to the cable connection area (24) of the plug contact (22, 24, 26), the plug-in end (end of 26 that connect to 22) which is mechanically and electrically conductively connected to the plug area (22) of the plug contact (22, 24, 26). Marcath and Ma do not explicitly disclose the fuse having a glass, ceramic or plastic tube, and furthermore has two metal caps, namely a cable-connection-side metal cap arranged at the cable-connection-side end, and a plug-side metal cap arranged at the plug-in-side end; wherein, in the operating state, these two metal caps are electrically conductively connected to each other via a fuse wire running through the glass, ceramic or plastic tube. However, Curtis teaches the fuse (fig. 3; 24) having a glass, ceramic or plastic tube (fig. 3; 29), and furthermore has two metal caps (fig. 3; 25, 27), namely a strap-connection-side metal cap (25) arranged at the strap-connection-side end (36), and a plug-side metal cap (27) arranged at the plug-in-side end (62); wherein, in the operating state (connected state), these two metal caps (25, 27) are electrically conductively connected to each other via a fuse wire (24 is a fuse, therefore it will contain a circuit wire that is configured to fail if current exceeds a certain level) running through the glass, ceramic or plastic tube (29). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fuse having a glass, ceramic or plastic tube, and furthermore has two metal caps, namely a cable-connection-side metal cap arranged at the cable-connection-side end, and a plug-side metal cap arranged at the plug-in-side end; wherein, in the operating state, these two metal caps are electrically conductively connected to each other via a fuse wire running through the glass, ceramic or plastic tube as suggested by Curtis for the benefit of improving the detection of a overload to effectively disconnect conduction. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcath et al. US9774179, Ma US2018/0109046 and Curtis US2644056 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Goyal et al. US2014/0113500. Marcath, Ma and Curtis disclose (Marcath) should the circuit experience an overload, the fuse will blow and voltage and current flow is terminated in the branch circuit (Col 5 Ln 29-31). Marcath, Ma and Curtis do not explicitly disclose the fuse wire has a fixedly specified maximum current and, in the event of a fault, is configured to melt as a result of an electrical current of which the current exceeds this maximum current and thereby disconnects said electrically conductive connection between the plug-in area and the cable connection area. However, Goyal teaches the fuse wire (fig. 2; 228) has a fixedly specified maximum current (Par [0047] Ln 5-7; explains what happens when maximum current is breached) and, in the event of a fault, is configured to melt (Par [0047] Ln 5-7) as a result of an electrical current of which the current exceeds this maximum current and thereby disconnects said electrically conductive connection between the plug-in area (fig. 2; 210) and the cable connection area (fig. 2; 230). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fuse wire having a fixedly specified maximum current and, in the event of a fault, is configured to melt as a result of an electrical current of which the current exceeds this maximum current and thereby disconnects said electrically conductive connection between the plug-in area and the cable connection area as suggested by Goyal for the benefit of providing an improved method of breaking conduction of a circuit within the fuse. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcath et al. US9774179 and Ma US2018/0109046 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dewitte US2011/0151719. Marcath and Ma discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein the transmission device has a plurality of transmission lines and a plurality of identical and/or different plug contacts, having a plurality of similar or different electrical fuses. However, Dewitte teaches the transmission device has a plurality of transmission lines (fig. 1; 120) and a plurality of identical and/or different plug contacts (fig. 5; 208, 210), having a plurality of similar or different electrical fuses (fig. 5; 524). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transmission device has a plurality of transmission lines and a plurality of identical and/or different plug contacts, having a plurality of similar or different electrical fuses as suggested by Dewitte for the benefit of providing improved circuit protection of a plurality of electrical connections. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest a substantially cuboid insulating body, through which at least part, specifically a contact chamber, of the contact receptacle runs, a retainer moulded onto the insulating body for holding the plug connector module in or on the plug connector modular frame; and wherein the plug connector module further has the at least one plug contact arranged in the at least one contact receptacle of the contact carrier combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest a. replacing the transmission device with a back-up transmission device identical or at least equivalent to the transmission device; b. restoring the previously interrupted electrical connection between the plug-in area and the cable connection area; and C. keeping the restored transmission device as a new back-up transmission device for a further possible fault case combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm. 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. /MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12764861
MULTI-CHANNEL MEMORY MODULE
3y 12m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763524
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR WITH AN IMPROVED GROUNDING MEMBER
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763500
CONNECTOR AND CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763498
WIRING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12749847
CONNECTOR
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.5%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 584 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month