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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schönfeld et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2020/0358276) in view of Tapper et al. (WIPO Application Publication WO2009/112049A1) and in further view of Ehmann et al. (US Patent # 7,806,374).
Regarding Claim 1, Schönfeld discloses a cable entry device for guiding cables through an aperture (i.e. opening 10) of an electronic equipment chassis (i.e. housing 1), the cable entry device comprising:
a flexible base member (i.e. sealing elements 3) including a central block (i.e. first cylinders 31 of sealing elements 3) with a grommet surface (i.e. outer surface of first cylinders 31) and a cylindrical grommet (i.e. second cylinders 32 of sealing elements 3) with a bore (i.e. cable passage 34) therethrough, the cylindrical grommet extending from the grommet surface, and a slit (i.e. slot 340) through the cylindrical grommet, the grommet configured to hold a cable (i.e. cable 4) in the bore; and
a frame (i.e. cover 112 w/ counter pressure plate 2) mated to the base member, the frame including an upper frame member (i.e. housing shell 11/half plate 20), a lower frame member (i.e. housing shell 12/half plate 21), and circular aperture (i.e. opening 14) aligned with the bore of the grommet and configured to receive the cable, wherein the central block of the base member is held between the upper frame member and the lower frame member, and wherein the frame holds the grommet surface of the central block of the base member to a panel with an aperture of the electronic equipment chassis so the cylindrical grommet extends through the aperture of the electronic equipment chassis (Fig. 1, 2a-2c, 3a-3d, 5c-5d, 6a-6b; Abstract; Paragraphs 0044-0069).
Schönfeld does not explicitly disclose that the central block is a rectangular central block and the grommet surface is flat , that the lower frame member has an end having a first exterior arm defined by the front plate and a second interior arm parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member has an end having a central tab insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together.
Tapper teaches that the central block is a rectangular central block (i.e. cable entry insert 1) and the grommet surface is flat (i.e. planar) (Fig. 1, 10c-10f, 11b; Abstract; Page 2, line 28- Page 3, line 17; Page 8, line 14-31; Page 16, line 12- Page 18, line 30; Claim 1).
Schönfeld in view of Tapper does not explicitly disclose that the lower frame member has an end having a first exterior arm defined by the front plate and a second interior arm parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member has an end having a central tab insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together.
Ehmann teaches that the lower frame member (i.e. wing 16 of frame 12) has an end having a first exterior arm (i.e. front side of area surrounding indentation 106) defined by the front plate and a second interior arm (i.e. rear side of area surrounding indentation 106) parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap (i.e. indentation 106) is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member (i.e. wing 14 of frame 12) has an end having a central tab (i.e. protuberance 104) insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13; Abstract; Column 1, 47- Column 2, line 5).
Tapper teaches that it is well known in the art of cable entry devices/systems to use a rectangular central block with a flat/planar grommet surface in order to have an improved, less bulky cable entry device/system. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the central block of Schönfeld in a rectangular shape with a flat grommet surface, as taught by Tapper, in order to have an improved, less bulky cable entry device/system. Furthermore, the court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Ehmann teaches that it is well known in the art of cable grommets to have the frame have arms and a gap in between which receives a protuberance or central tab in order to attach and line up the separate frame members or wings. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such a structure and configuration in the cable feedthrough/grommet of Schönfeld in view of Tapper, as taught by Ehmann, in order to reliably attach and line up the separate housing shells/half plates.
Regarding Claim 3, Schönfeld discloses that the upper (i.e. housing shell 11/half plate 20) and lower (i.e. housing shell 12/half plate 21) frame members are identical (Fig. 1, 2a, 3d, 5c-5d, 6a; Paragraphs 0046, 0049, 0057, 0065).
Regarding Claim 6, Schönfeld discloses that the base member (i.e. sealing elements 3) is rubber (i.e. flexible and/or elastic material) and the frame (i.e. cover 112 w/ counter pressure plate 2) is plastic or metal (i.e. plastic/metal) (Abstract; Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0059).
Regarding Claim 7, Schönfeld discloses that the grommet (i.e. sealing elements 3 w/ first cylinders 31 & second cylinders 32) and slit (i.e. slot 340) are one of a plurality of grommets (i.e. plurality of sealing elements 3) and slits of the base member (Fig. 1, 3a-3b; Abstract; Paragraphs 0044, 0048, 0063, 0067).
Regarding Claim 10, Schönfeld discloses that the frame and the base member include a connector hole (i.e. bores 15) to receive a fastener (i.e. screws) to connect the frame and the base to the electronic equipment chassis (Fig. 2a; Paragraph 0049-0050, 0066).
Regarding Claim 11, Schönfeld discloses an electronics device for placement in an outside environment, comprising:
a chassis (i.e. housing 1) having a panel with an aperture (i.e. opening 10) to receive at least one cable (i.e. cable 4); and
a cable entry device inserted over the aperture, the cable entry device including:
a flexible base member (i.e. sealing elements 3) including a central block (i.e. first cylinders 31 of sealing elements 3) with a grommet surface (i.e. outer surface of first cylinders 31) and a cylindrical grommet (i.e. second cylinders 32 of sealing elements 3) with a bore (i.e. cable passage 34) therethrough, the cylindrical grommet extending from the grommet surface, and a slit (i.e. slot 340) through the cylindrical grommet, the bore operable to hold the cable; and
a frame (i.e. cover 112 w/ counter pressure plate 2) mated to the base member, the frame an upper frame member (i.e. housing shell 11/half plate 20), a lower frame member (i.e. housing shell 12/half plate 21), and including a circular aperture (i.e. opening 14) aligned with the bore of the cylindrical grommet and configured to receive the cable, wherein the central block of the base member is held between the upper frame member and the lower frame member, and wherein the frame holds the grommet surface of the central block of the base member to the panel with the aperture of the chassis so the cylindrical grommet extends through the aperture of the chassis (Fig. 1, 2a-2c, 3a-3d, 5c-5d, 6a-6b; Abstract; Paragraphs 0044-0069).
Schönfeld does not explicitly disclose that the central block is a rectangular central block and the grommet surface is flat , that the lower frame member has an end having a first exterior arm defined by the front plate and a second interior arm parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member has an end having a central tab insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together.
Tapper teaches that the central block is a rectangular central block (i.e. cable entry insert 1) and the grommet surface is flat (i.e. planar) (Fig. 1, 10c-10f, 11b; Abstract; Page 2, line 28- Page 3, line 17; Page 8, line 14-31; Page 16, line 12- Page 18, line 30; Claim 1).
Schönfeld in view of Tapper does not explicitly disclose that the lower frame member has an end having a first exterior arm defined by the front plate and a second interior arm parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member has an end having a central tab insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together.
Ehmann teaches that the lower frame member (i.e. wing 16 of frame 12) has an end having a first exterior arm (i.e. front side of area surrounding indentation 106) defined by the front plate and a second interior arm (i.e. rear side of area surrounding indentation 106) parallel to the first exterior arm, wherein a gap (i.e. indentation 106) is formed between the first and second arms, and the upper frame member (i.e. wing 14 of frame 12) has an end having a central tab (i.e. protuberance 104) insertable within the gap between the first and second arms of the lower frame member to mate the front plates together (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13; Abstract; Column 1, 47- Column 2, line 5).
Tapper teaches that it is well known in the art of cable entry devices/systems to use a rectangular central block with a flat/planar grommet surface in order to have an improved, less bulky cable entry device/system. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the central block of Schönfeld in a rectangular shape with a flat grommet surface, as taught by Tapper, in order to have an improved, less bulky cable entry device/system. Furthermore, the court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Ehmann teaches that it is well known in the art of cable grommets to have the frame have arms and a gap in between which receives a protuberance or central tab in order to attach and line up the separate frame members or wings. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such a structure and configuration in the cable feedthrough/grommet of Schönfeld in view of Tapper, as taught by Ehmann, in order to reliably attach and line up the separate housing shells/half plates.
Regarding Claim 12, Schönfeld discloses that the upper frame member (i.e. housing shell 11/half plate 20) and the lower frame member (i.e. housing shell 12/half plate 21) that are identical (Fig. 1, 2a, 3d, 5c-5d, 6a; Paragraphs 0046, 0049, 0057, 0065).
Regarding Claim 15, Schönfeld discloses that the base member (i.e. sealing elements 3) is rubber (i.e. flexible and/or elastic material) and the frame (i.e. cover 112 w/ counter pressure plate 2) is plastic or metal (i.e. plastic/metal) (Abstract; Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0059).
Regarding Claim 16, Schönfeld discloses that the grommet (i.e. sealing elements 3 w/ first cylinders 31 & second cylinders 32) and slit (i.e. slot 340) are one of a plurality of grommets (i.e. plurality of sealing elements 3) and slits of the base member (Fig. 1, 3a-3b; Abstract; Paragraphs 0044, 0048, 0063, 0067).
Regarding Claim 19, Schönfeld discloses that the frame and the base member include a connector hole (i.e. bores 15) configured to receive a fastener (i.e. screws) to connect the frame and the base member to the chassis (Fig. 2a; Paragraph 0049-0050, 0066).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Schönfeld does not disclose or teach the limitations of independent claims 1 & 11 as amended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed the new limitations in the rejection above in view of Schönfeld, Tapper, and new reference Ehmann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights