DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
In response to the amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed February 18, 2026, the previous drawing objections are obviated are hereby withdrawn. As such, the drawings filed on October 04, 2024 are accepted by the examiner for examination purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed February 18, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 112(b) & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon further review, the position is taken that the prior clarity issues have been addressed / overcome and therefore the 112(b) rejections are vacated; however, the position is taken that the 103 rejections are still viable and therefore maintained. Regarding applicant’s reliance of the set screws (11) passing through the outer ring (3b) and protruding from the bearing surface (30b) of the outer ring to bear against the wall portion (20) to apply direct clamping force to the wall portion as a distinction against the prior art combination is not persuasive. The mapped rejection is deemed to adequately account for such structure and functional aspect in a manner as demonstrated by applicant. The examiner notes that while applicant argues a perceived distinction between the invention and the prior art, the invention itself relies upon intervening components (in a manner similar to the known art) in order to embody the claimed scope. For example, the set screws pass through the outer ring and from a bearing surface to bear against a washer (9) to apply in-direct clamping force to the wall portion. Applicant’s remarks that the set screws of Eisert function as a fundamentally different structure is not persuasive since one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. As modified, the incorporation of a set screw inserted into the outer ring and bearing against the wall portion of Jennrich’s device would yield the same result as applicant’s feature, especially since both rings are fastened together via the assembly screws (16). Furthermore, applicant’s remarks concerning a functionally different arrangement where the seal is compressed between the bearing surface and the wall by action of the set screw in order to show a lacking of certain features of the invention is not persuasive since the combined features upon which applicant relies upon (i.e., bearing surface, set screw, seal & wall portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) in a manner as argued. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The position is sustained that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396.
Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennrich et al., [US 5,662,581] in view of Eisert [US 4,141,609]. Jennrich teaches of a door assembly (figs. 1-2) for a sealed enclosure (sterile enclosure or isolation chamber) comprising a wall (10) having a wall portion (viewed as the lower portion of the wall as depicted in fig. 1) defining at least one passage opening (port) therein, the door assembly comprising a flange (represented as the structure along the left side of fig. 1 for instance) attached to the wall portion defining the passage opening and a leaf (defined as the combined (24) + (26) for example) mounted movable relative to the flange between a closed position (when the components are assembled and attached to the flange) in which the leaf closes the passage opening and an open position (when the components are disassembled and detached from the flange), characterized in that the flange comprises two flange elements (11, 14) distinct from each other, the two flange elements comprising an inner ring (14) inside the enclosure and an outer ring (11) outside the enclosure, the two flange elements assembled together by assembly screws (16), the assembly screws being inherently arranged to be radially offset from an edge of the wall portion (the flange elements are in the shape of a ring) so as to connect inner and outer rings together without passing through the wall portion interposed between the inner (14) and outer (11) rings, the inner ring having a bearing surface (viewed as a left side bearing surface against the seal (13) – fig. 2) arranged to bear on the inner surface of the wall portion (in a manner similar to applicant’s representation), the outer ring (11) having a bearing surface (viewed as a right side bearing surface against seal (13) – fig. 2) arranged to bear against the outer surface of the wall portion (in a manner similar to applicant’s representation). Jennrich teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed door assembly as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show the flange further comprising one or more set screws passing through the outer ring to bear against the wall portion as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Eisert is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of set screws (23) being used within an outer ring (22) of a port flange (fig. 1) to pass through the outer ring and to bear against a wall portion (such as the portion along (24)) of a wall (10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jennrich so as to add set screws to the outer ring in view of Eisert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an adjustable yet secure means by which the flange is clamped to the wall of the enclosure, whereby the tightening of the screws would pull the inner ring into tight engagement with the inner surface of the wall and thereby promote a leak-proof seal (col. 3 of Eisert). As modified, the set screw would pass through the outer ring (11) and protrude from the bearing surface (right side surface of (11) facing the wall (10)) to bear against the wall portion to apply direct clamping force to the wall portion. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the door assembly can comprise at least one protective washer (note (24) of Eisert) intended to be placed between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion; as such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jennrich so as to add a protective washer in view of Eisert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which extra protection is placed upon the wall’s surface in order to minimize damage / deflection of the wall portion during tightening of the set screws. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the door assembly comprises at least one seal (13) intended to be inserted between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the combined assembly includes the enclosure, the wall and passage opening as previously noted. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the door assembly comprises the at least one seal intended to be inserted between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion as previously noted.
Claims 4 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennrich et al., in view of Eisert and further in view of Granadino [US 2010/0314975]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed assembly as outlined above, but does not show the wall as having two wall elements along with an interspersed spacer. As to this aspect, Granadino is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a spacer (18) interspersed between wall elements (8, 20) of a wall of an enclosure (10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combined prior art so as to incorporate a spacer when the door assembly is employed with a wall having two wall elements in view of Granadino’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which a wall having two wall elements can be safely used with the door assembly when a spacer is inserted in between the two wall elements thereby increasing the utility of the device as it relates to enclosures having varying wall compositions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing a sealing device for a glove box.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. 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.
JOH
March 3, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637