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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 19/016,200, filed on January 10, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 10, 2025, has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 10, 2025. These drawings are approved.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because throughout the abstract, it contains run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neef et al (WO2020115082, herein referred to as Neef) in view of Watanabe (Pat Num 7,947,904) in view of Neef et al (WO2020115082, herein referred to as Neef). Watanabe discloses a joint connector (Figs 1-16) for usage with a cable installed within a vehicle (Col 1, lines 45-52) and connecting two conductors of the cable having dissimilar metals achieving electrical corrosion prevention in the case that one of the conductors is prone to buckling deformation (Col 1, lines 57-67). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Watabe discloses a joint connector (30) for connecting a first conductor (20) of a first power cable length (located at 22) and a second conductor (10) of a second power cable length (located at 11), wherein the first conductor (20) including a first metal material (i.e. copper alloy) and the second conductor (10) including a second metal material (i.e. aluminum alloy), wherein the second metal material (aluminum alloy) being different from the first metal material (copper alloy, Col 2, lines 60-67), wherein the joint connector (30) comprises a tubular metal body (35) being made of the first metal material (i.e. copper alloy, Col 3, lines 24-26) and having a central axis extending from a first end (right end) of the metal body (35 & 31) to a second end (left end) of the metal body (35 & 31), wherein the first end (right end) is provided with an axially extending opening adapted to receive the first conductor (20), and wherein the metal body (35 & 31) includes at least one radially extending through-opening, connecting with the axially extending opening, for clamping the first conductor (20) when received within the axially extending opening (Fig 1), and wherein the second end (left end) is a closed end (located at 32), the closed end (located at 32) including an end face (32) adapted to be welded to the second conductor (10, Col 3, lines 29-48). With respect to claim 2, Watanabe discloses that the tubular metal body (35 & 31) has a first radius (located at 34) at the first end (right end) and a second radius (located at taper to the left of 34), smaller than the first radius (located at 34), at the second end (left end), and a radial transition (downward taper) where the radius of the tubular metal body (35 & 31) transitions from the first radius (located at 34) to the second radius (located at taper to the left of 34). With respect to claims 4-5, Watanabe discloses the first metal material is copper or a copper alloy and the second metal material is aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Paragraph 3, lines 60-67). With respect to claim 6, Watanabe discloses that the second end (left end) has an end surface (32) defining a first plane that intersects a transverse plane (12) of the metal body (31). With respect to claim 7, Watanabe discloses that the angle between the first plane and the transverse plane is in a range of 180o (Fig 1). With respect to claim 8, Watanabe discloses that a central axis (i.e. center axis) of the axially extending opening (area where conductor 20 sits) essentially coincides with the central axis of the metal body (35 & 31, Fig 1). With respect to claim 9, Watanabe discloses a power cable (Wa) comprising a first conductor (20) and a second conductor (10), the first conductor (20) including a first metal material (i.e. copper alloy) and the second conductor (10) including a second metal material (i.e. aluminum alloy), wherein the second metal material (aluminum alloy) being different from the first metal material (copper alloy, Col 2, lines 60-67), wherein the power cable (Wa) further includes a joint connector (30) for connecting the first conductor (20) to the second conductor (10), wherein the joint connector (30) comprises a tubular metal body (35) being made of the first metal material (i.e. copper alloy, Col 3, lines 24-26) and having a central axis extending from a first end (right end) of the metal body (35 & 31) to a second end (left end) of the metal body (35 & 31), wherein the first end (right end) is provided with an axially extending opening adapted to receive the first conductor (20), and wherein the metal body (35 & 31) includes at least one radially extending through-opening, connecting with the axially extending opening, for clamping the first conductor (20) when received within the axially extending opening (Fig 1), and wherein the second end (left end) is a closed end (located at 32), the closed end (located at 32) including an end face (32) adapted to be welded to the second conductor (10, Col 3, lines 29-48).
With respect to claims 10-11, Watanabe discloses the first metal material is copper or a copper alloy and the second metal material is aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Paragraph 3, lines 60-67). With respect to claim 12, Watanabe discloses that the second end (left end) has an end surface (32) defining a first plane that intersects a transverse plane (12) of the metal body (31). With respect to claim 13, Watanabe discloses that a central axis (i.e. center axis) of the axially extending opening (area where conductor 20 sits) essentially coincides with the central axis of the metal body (35 & 31, Fig 1).
However, Watanabe doesn’t necessarily disclose the first end is provided with an axially extending opening adapted to receive the first conductor, and wherein the metal body includes at least one radially extending through-opening, connecting with the axially extending opening, the radially extending through-opening being adapted to receive at least one fastener for clamping the first conductor when received within the axially extending opening (claim 1), nor the axially extending opening and the at least one radially extending through-opening are arranged between the first end and the radial transition (claim 3), nor the metal body includes at least one radially extending through-opening, connecting with the axially extending opening, the radially extending through-opening being adapted to receive at least one fastener for clamping the first conductor when received within the axially extending opening (claim 9).
Neef teaches a joint connector (Figs 1-26) for usage with a cable installed within a vehicle (Paragraph 30) and connecting two conductors of the cable having dissimilar metals to provide a stable connection and simple production (Paragraph 14), while having fasteners that prevent electrical connection from becoming detached or damaged (Paragraph 7). Specifically, with respect to claims 1, 3, & 9, Neef discloses a joint connector (40, 41) for connecting a first conductor (20) of a first power cable length (located at 22) and a second conductor (84) of a second power cable length (located at 84), wherein the joint connector (10) comprises a tubular metal body (30) having a central axis extending from a first end (left end) of the metal body (30) to a second end (right end) of the metal body (30), wherein the first end (left end) is provided with an axially extending opening adapted to receive the first conductor (20), and wherein the metal body (30) includes at least one radially extending through-opening (32, as shown in Fig 6), connecting with the axially extending opening (Fig 6), being adapted to receive at least one fastener (40) for clamping for clamping the first conductor (20) when received within the axially extending opening (Fig 10), and wherein the second end (right end) is a closed end (located at 41), the closed end (located at 41) including an end face (Fig 11) adapted to be welded to the second conductor (84, Paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the joint connector of Watanabe to comprise the metal body includes at least one radially extending through-opening, connecting with the axially extending opening, the radially extending through-opening being adapted to receive at least one fastener for clamping the first conductor when received within the axially extending opening configuration as taught by Neef because Neef teaches that such a configuration provides a joint connector (Figs 1-26) for usage with a cable installed within a vehicle (Paragraph 30) and connecting two conductors of the cable having dissimilar metals to provide a stable connection and simple production (Paragraph 14), while having fasteners that prevent electrical connection from becoming detached or damaged (Paragraph 7).
Watanabe also doesn’t necessarily disclose the connector being made of a second material aluminum (claims 1 & 9), nor the angle between the first plane and the transverse plane is in a range of 20o-40o (claim 7).
With respect to claims 1 & 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the connector of Watanabe to be made of aluminum as opposed to copper since it is well known in the art that aluminum is also a superior conductor but has the advantage of being a lighter material thereby resulting in a cost reduction and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle of Watanabe to be between the range of 20-40o, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various joint connections for power cables.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights