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 § 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 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubish et al., US7038137B2 (hereinafter, Grubish) in view of Gabbey US3419928 (hereinafter, Gabbey).
Regarding claim 1, Grubish teaches a cable enclosure (10, see Fig. 1) comprising: an end plate (80, see Fig. 3) releasably secured (column 4, lines 5-7) to a housing (12, Fig. 1) to cover an opening (24, see Fig. 1) defined in the housing (12) such that an interior (components seen inside the housing (12) in Fig. 1) of the housing (12) is not accessible through the opening (24).
Grubish fails to expressly teach the end plate defining an aperture that extends through the end plate from a first side of the end plate to a second side of the end plate; and
a fastener extending through the aperture, the fastener comprising:
a head disposed to the first side of the end plate;
a shaft extending from a first end to a second end, the first end attached to the head, the second end disposed to the second side of the end plate, the shaft having an external thread proximal the second end; and
a nut having an internal thread.
However, Grubish does expressly teach at least one component of the end plate having a through hole (see Figs. 3-5), a fastener (123, see Figs. 3-5) that serves as a bolt having a head on one side of the end plate, a shaft with an external thread extending through to the other side of the end plate, and a nut to fasten together the end plate components (see Figs. 3-5; also, see column 5, lines 51-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to substitute a similar through hole and fastener arrangement in place of the clip (in Grubish - 198, see Figs. 3-5) because both the clip and a through hole/fastener arrangement serve the same purpose of securely connecting components together. Moreover, Gurbish expressly teaches the clip can be replaced by a bolt to secure the components together (see column 8, lines 5-10).
Further, Grubish fails to teach the second end of the shaft has a first condition and a second condition,
in the first condition, the internal thread of the nut mates with and corresponds to the external thread of the shaft to attach the nut to the shaft, and
in the second condition, the second end is deformed proximal the end face such that the internal thread of the nut is non-corresponding to and does not mate with the external thread of the shaft proximal the end face and the nut, once attached to the shaft, does not detach from the shaft.
Gabbey teaches a fastener (10, see Fig. 1) capable of extending through an aperture, the fastener comprising:
a head (see Fig. 1) disposed to the first side of the end plate (head would be in contact with the first side of the end plate when assembled);
a shaft 11 extending from a first end (end towards the head of the fastener) to a second end (end towards the opposite of the head of the fastener), the first end attached to the head, the second end disposed to the second side of the end plate (see Fig. 1), the shaft having an external thread 12 proximal the second end; and the shaft having a blind hole 14 extending along an axial direction of the shaft from an end face of the second end (see hole 14 formed and extending from second end in Fig. 1) and into an interior of the shaft only from the second end such that a full perimeter of the shaft surrounds the blind hole (see Figs. 1 and 5); and
a nut 30 having an internal thread 12a wherein: the second end of the shaft has a first condition and a second condition,
in the first condition, the internal diameter of the nut such that the internal thread of the nut mates with and corresponds to the external thread of the shaft to attach the nut to the shaft (It is the examiner’s position that upon assembling of the nut and the bolt without ball 23 in Gabbey, the assembly is capable achieving the first condition), and
in the second condition, the second end is deformed proximal the end face such that the internal thread of the nut is non-corresponding to and does not mate with the external thread of the shaft proximal the end face and the nut, once attached to the shaft, does not detach from the shaft (see Fig. 6 and columns 3-4).
The Examiner interprets that the assembly in Gabbey meets the structural limitations of fastener assembly, and capable of meeting the first condition and the second condition preventing the removal of the nut (see Figs. 3-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the deformable fastener assembly taught by Gabbey in an end plate aperture of Grubish for improved and secured tightening of the end plate to the enclosure house.
Regarding claim 2, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 1, wherein Gabbey further teaches the second end of the shaft is placed in the second condition by application of a force to the end face of the second end to deform the second end at the full perimeter of the shaft surrounding the blind hole (see Figs. 6-7), and the external thread of the shaft located within the nut is non-deformed in the second condition.
As best understood, it is the examiner’s position that Grubish in view of Gabbey meets structural limitation of claimed invention. Grubish modified by Gabbey is capable of meeting limitations as claimed above where the external thread of the shaft located within the nut is non-deformed in the second condition during assembly as part of assembly steps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have placed the nut in desired location of the threaded shank of the bolt in Gabbey to secure the fastener as intended by the user. Further, the disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the non-deformed portion of the thread in the second condition.
Regarding claim 3, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 2, wherein Gabbey further teaches the force is applied through an object having a convex surface that contacts the end face of the the second end of the shaft at the full perimeter of the shaft surrounding the blind hole (see convex head of a tapered pin plug in Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 4, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener in claim 1, wherein the second end of the shaft proximal the end face is spherically deformed in the second condition (see Gabbey Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 3, wherein Gabbey further teaches the second end of the shaft is in the second condition, the end face of the second end of the shaft is concave (see concave opening 14 in Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 3, wherein the object has a first hardness rating and the second end of the shaft has a second hardness rating less than the first hardness rating.
The Examiner notes the discloser doesn’t necessarily discuss the hardness rating of first end and second end and interprets that the sphere configured to deform the bolt in Gabbey to have greater hardness than the second end of the bolt because the second end is configured to deform. See figures.
Regarding claim 7, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 2, wherein Gabbey further teaches the shaft extends along an axis of the axial direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 7, However Gabbey further teaches the force is applied parallel to the axis (see Figs. 3-4 showing the direction of the ball 23 moving).
Regarding claim 9, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches a cable enclosure comprising:
an end plate releasably secured to a housing to cover an opening defined in the housing such that an interior of the housing is not accessible through the opening, the end plate defining an aperture that extends through the end plate from a first side of the end plate to a second side of the end plate; and
a fastener extending through the aperture, the fastener comprising:
a head disposed to the first side of the end plate;
a shaft extending from a first end to a second end, the first end attached to the head, the second end disposed to the second side of the end plate, the shaft having an external thread proximal the second end; and the shaft having a blind hole extending along an axial direction of the shaft from an end face of the second end and into an interior of the shaft only from the second end such that a full perimeter of the shaft surrounds the blind hole; and
a nut having an internal thread and an internal diameter, wherein:
the second end of the shaft has a first condition and a second condition
in the first condition, an external diameter of the second end at the full perimeter of the shaft surrounding the blind hole corresponds to the internal diameter of the nut such that the internal thread of the nut mates with the external thread of the shaft to attach the nut to the shaft, and
in the second condition, the second end is deformed proximal the end face such that the external diameter of the second end proximal the end face is greater than and non-corresponding to the internal diameter of the nut such that the internal thread of the nut does not mate with the external thread of the shaft proximal the end face and the nut, once attached to the shaft, does not detach from the shaft.
(Claim 9 is substantially similar to the claim 1, except the external diameter of the nut is greater than the internal diameter of the nut. However, Grubish in view of Gabbey still teaches and/or make obvious this limitation in Figs. 2-4 where the external diameter of the second end would be greater than the internal diameter of the nut once distorted by the ball 23 preventing detachment from the shaft).
Regarding claim 10, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the cable enclosure of claim 9, wherein Gabbey further teaches wherein the second end of the shaft proximal the end face is spherically deformed in the second condition (see Figs. 3-4 and 6).
Regarding claim 17, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the cable enclosure of claim 9, wherein in the second condition such that the nut does not detach from the shaft (made obvious by Grubish in view of Gabbey), the fastener cannot be removed from the aperture (made obvious by Grubish in view of Gabbey as established in claim 1), and the external thread of the shaft located within the nut is non-deformed in the second condition. (Made obvious by Grubish modified by Gabbey as established in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, A method of operating a cable enclosure comprising: securing an end plate to a housing of the cable enclosure to cover an opening defined in the housing such that an interior of the housing is not accessible through the opening;
placing a shaft of a fastener through an aperture defined in the end plate and extending through the end plate from a first side of the end plate to a second side of the end plate, wherein:
the shaft extends from a first end to a second end, with the second end having an end face,
the first end of the shaft is disposed to the first side of the end plate and a head is attached to the first end and is dimensioned such that the head cannot pass through the aperture,
the second end of the shaft is disposed to the second side of the end plate, and
the shaft has an external thread proximal the second end; attaching a nut of the fastener to the shaft by threading the nut having an internal thread onto the external thread of the shaft such that the second end proximal the end face is located outside of the nut; and
after attaching the nut to the shaft, applying a force to the end face of the second end of the shaft to enlarge an external diameter of the second end such that the external diameter of the second end proximal the end face is greater than an internal diameter of the nut and the nut does not detach from the shaft.
The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claims 18, given the structure as taught by Grubish in view of Gabbey, the structural elements combined above in claim 1 would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 19, The method of claim 18, wherein applying the force comprises placing an object having a convex surface in contact with the end face and applying the force to the object to deform the second end of the shaft proximal the end face such that the second end of the shaft proximal the end face is spherically deformed.
The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claims 19, given the structure as taught by Grubish in view of Gabbey, the structural elements combined above in claim 3 would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 20, The method of claim 18, wherein applying the force does not enlarge the external diameter within the nut.
The Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claims 20, given the structure as taught by Grubish in view of Gabbey, the structural elements combined above in claim 1 would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination as previously made obvious.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubish in view of Gabbey, in further view of Knorr et al., US20090309313A1 (hereinafter, Knorr).
Regarding claim 11, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the cable enclosure of claim 9.
Grubish in view of Gabbey fails to teach a conductive leg coupled to the end plate.
However, Knorr in the field of same endeavor to Grubish teaches a conductive leg (28, see Fig. 2) coupled to the end plate (14, see Fig. 2) and extending into the interior of the housing (21, see Fig. 3) to [place a telecommunication cable within the interior of the housing into or out of an electrical bonding arrangement with a second telecommunication cable within the interior of the housing] (intended use).
As evidenced above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add conductive legs to Grubish in view of Gabbey to its interior part of the end plate as taught by Knorr to place telecommunication cables inside the housing for connecting second telecommunication cable from out of the housing for improved operation and accessibility.
Regarding claim 12, Grubish in view of Gabbey, in further view of Knorr teaches the cable enclosure of claim 11, wherein when Grubish in view of Gabbey modified by Knorr, the conductive leg (28) of Knorr in the combination meets the limitation where the legs is fixed relative to the fastener of Grubish.
Regarding claim 13, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the cable enclosure of claim 9, Grubish in view Gabbey modified by Knorr would have a conductive member (28) of Knorr be attached to the shaft of Grubish established above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Grubish in view of Gabbey, in further view of Knorr teaches the cable enclosure of claim 13, wherein the conductive member (28) of Knorr once modified in Grubish would be capable of translating in a direction corresponding to a direction in which the head is rotated because of same reason as set forth in claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Grubish in view of Gabbey teaches and/or make obvious of the cable enclosure of claim 9, Knorr further teaches a plurality of conductive legs (28) coupled to the end plate for coupling a plurality of telecommunication cables to the cable enclosure. (Claim 15 is similar to claim 11, therefore refer to rejection set forth for claim 11 above)
Regarding claim 16, Grubish in view of Gabbey, in further view of Knorr teaches the cable enclosure of claim 15, wherein the shaft (established in claim 1) extends along a central axis (axial line passing axially through head of the bolt to second end as established in claim 1) and two or more conductive legs of the plurality of conductive legs (28 as taught by Knorr) are arranged in a radial pattern around the central axis (refer to radial patterned conductive legs (28) of Knorr in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered.
However, rejection based on existing prior arts, different than previous, has been set forth above. Remarks in 03/02/2026 has been considered moot in view of rejection and rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights