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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on February 20th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-27 remain pending in the application.
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 1-2, 5, 20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001).
Regrading Claim 1, Cox teaches an enclosure comprising: a housing having an interior and an exterior (Figure 7, Showcases Enclosure 10 with an interior and exterior), the housing including a first housing piece and a second housing piece (Figure 7, Top Housing 12 and Bottom Housing 14) that are coupled together by an induction weld strength joint (Paragraph 23, Top Housing 12 and Bottom Housing 14 are joined together thru induction), the induction weld strength joint including a bonding material including susceptors adapted to generate heat when exposed to magnetic energy (Paragraph 23, The strength seal includes a heat soluble resin with magnetically active particles that reads as susceptors. Paragraph 23, The magnetically active particles are exposed to an RF electromagnetic field which heats the magnetically active particles which cause the heat soluble material to soften and bond with top and housing bottom pieces 12 and 14), wherein the induction weld strength joint has a preferred vent path that extends toward the interior of the housing such that when the bonding material is heated via magnetic energy (Paragraph 28 and Figure 6, Seal Zone 34 extends inward toward the interior of the housing and is where the boding material is located), softened and pressurized during induction welding (Paragraph 23, The magnetically active particles are exposed to an RF electromagnetic field which heats the magnetically active particles which cause the heat soluble material to soften and bond with top and housing bottom pieces 12 and 14), the bonding material is predisposed to vent toward the interior of the housing as compared to the exterior of the housing (Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 maintains sufficient space for the thermoplastic cord to spread when heated and not to be pushed out of groove 32 and out of housing 12 and bottom housing 14).
Cox fails to teach that the induction weld strength joint has an asymmetrically configured joint channel with an outer channel wall taller than an inner channel wall to create
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where induction weld strength joint has an asymmetrically configured joint channel with an outer channel wall taller than an inner channel wall to create (Figure 1-2, The second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is Shorter than the First protrusion 112, acting as the outer wall, therefore creating a preferred vent path).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox’s inner channel wall and outer channel wall with an inner channel wall and the outer channel wall as stated in Chen since they both are utilized to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Regrading Claim 2, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the bonding material includes a polymeric material including the susceptors (Cox: Paragraph 23, The strength seal includes a heat soluble resin as the polymeric bonding material with magnetically active particles that reads as susceptors).
Regrading Claim 5, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the polymeric material includes a thermoplastic material (Cox: Paragraph 23, The heat soluble resin can be in the form of a thermoplastic cord).
Regrading Claim 20, Cox teaches an enclosure comprising: a housing having an interior and an exterior (Figure 7, Showcases Enclosure 10 with an interior and exterior), the housing including a first housing piece and a second housing piece (Figure 7, Top Housing 12 and Bottom Housing 14) that are coupled together by a joint (Paragraph 23, Top Housing 12 and Bottom Housing 14 are joined together by a weld), the joint including a bonding material (Paragraph 23, The strength seal includes a heat soluble resin as a bonding material) and the joint being configured such that when the bonding material is pressurized during formation of the joint the bonding material is predisposed to move toward the interior of the housing (Paragraph 28 and Figure 6, Seal Zone 34 extends inward to the interior of the housing and is where the boding material is located) as compared to the exterior of the housing (Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 maintains sufficient space for the thermoplastic cord to spread when heated and not to be pushed out of groove 32 and out of housing 12 and bottom housing 14).
Cox fails to teach that the induction weld strength joint has an asymmetrically configured joint channel with an outer channel wall taller than an inner channel wall to create
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where induction weld strength joint has an asymmetrically configured joint channel with an outer channel wall taller than an inner channel wall to create (Figure 1-2, The second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is Shorter than the First protrusion 112, acting as the outer wall, therefore creating a preferred vent path).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox’s inner channel wall and outer channel wall with an inner channel wall and the outer channel wall as stated in Chen since they both are utilized to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Regrading Claim 25, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the joint defines a preferred vent path for encouraging the bonding material to flow toward the interior of the enclosure (Cox: Paragraph 28 and Figure 6, Seal Zone 34 extends inward to the interior of the housing and is where the boding material is located and encourages it to flow inward).
Regrading Claim 26, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the bonding material includes susceptors and is pressurized during an induction molding process (Cox: Paragraph 23, The strength seal includes a heat soluble resin as the polymeric bonding material with magnetically active particles that reads as susceptors. Paragraph 23 and Claim 13, Top Housing 12 and Bottom Housing 14 are joined together thru induction and pressure is applied).
Regrading Claim 27, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the bonding material includes two-part epoxy, a mastic material, a glue or a caulk (Cox: Paragraph 25, The strength seal includes the use of Glue).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Matsen (US Patent No. 5793024).
Regrading Claim 3, Cox in view of Chen fails to teach that the susceptors include a metallic material.
Matsen teaches a bonding metal or composite structures using induction heating (Col 1 Line 20-23, Induction Heating) where the susceptors include a metallic material (Col 10-11 Line 67-1, Susceptors sheet made from Cobalt).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen to incorporate susceptors that include a metallic material as stated in Matsen. Susceptor Sheets can be recovered and are reusable (Col 9 Line, Susceptors sheets).
Regrading Claim 4, Cox in view of Chen fails to teach that the susceptors include a ferromagnetic material.
Matsen teaches a bonding metal or composite structures using induction heating (Col 1 Line 20-23, Induction Heating) where the susceptors include a ferromagnetic material (Col 10-11 Line 67-1, Susceptors sheet made from Cobalt which is ferromagnetic).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen to incorporate susceptors that include a ferromagnetic material as stated in Matsen. Susceptor Sheets can be recovered and are reusable (Col 9 Line, Susceptors sheets).
Claims 6-11, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Reagan (US Patent No. 20060093303).
Regrading Claim 6, Cox in view of Chen teaches that the first housing piece defines a joint channel for receiving the bonding material (Cox: Paragraph 23 and Figure 6, The heat soluble resin is placed in groove 32 created by Bottom Housing 14), the joint channel being defined by an inner channel wall and an outer channel wall (Cox: Figure 6, Groove 32 is defined by an Inner and Outer Wall of Housing 14), the inner and outer channel walls each having an upper end (Cox: Figure 6, Inner and Outer Wall of Housing 14 both have an upper end), the second housing piece including a joint pressurization rib that projects into the joint channel when the first and second housing pieces are mated together to pressurize the bonding material (Cox: Figure 6 and Paragraph 23, Tongue 70, reads as a joint pressurization rib, goes into groove 32 when both housing are joined and comes in contact with the bonding material), the second housing piece including an inner overhang and an outer overhang (Cox: Figure 6, Stop portion 74 acts as the outer overhang in Housing 12), and wherein the outer overhang opposes the upper end of the outer channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Cox: Figure 6 and Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 opposes the upper end of the outer channel wall when both housing are joined together).
Cox in view of Chen fails to teach that the inner overhang opposes the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Reagan teaches a fiber drop terminal with a housing (Abstract, A fiber drop terminal may with a housing) where the inner overhang opposes the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 10B, Housing 1004 has an inner overhang that opposes the inner wall of the Base 1002 when they are joined).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox in view of Chen housing connection that has no overhang with the housing connection with overhang as stated in Reagan. Both Cox and Reagan are art that utilize joint connection to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Regrading Claim 7, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches that the bonding material is initially installed as a cord, a pre-formed gasket or a pre-formed metal piece (Cox: Paragraph 23, The heat soluble resin can be in the form of a thermoplastic cord and can include gaskets as well).
Regrading Claim 8, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches the joint pressurization rib is configured to force the bonding material more in an inward direction ( Cox: Paragraph 28 and Figure 6, Seal Zone 34, created by Tongue 70, extends inward to the interior of the housing and is where the boding material is located) as compared to an outward direction as the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Cox: Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 maintains sufficient space for the thermoplastic cord to spread when heated and not to be pushed out of groove 32 and out of housing 12 and bottom housing 14).
Regrading Claim 9, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches the joint pressurization rib is closer to outer channel wall than the inner channel wall (Cox: Figure 6, Tongue 70, reads as a joint pressurization rib, is closer to the outer wall than the inner wall).
Regrading Claim 10, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches the joint pressurization rib slides against outer channel wall and is offset from inner channel wall (Cox: Figure 6, Tongue 70, reads as a joint pressurization rib, slides against the outer channel wall and is offset from the inner channel wall).
Regrading Claim 11, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches the joint pressurization rib has a wedge shape (Cox: Figure 6, Tongue 70, reads as a joint pressurization rib, has a wedge shape).
Regarding Claim 21, Cox teaches that the first housing piece defines a joint channel for receiving the bonding material (Paragraph 23 and Figure 6, The heat soluble resin is placed in groove 32 created by Bottom Housing 14), the joint channel being defined by an inner channel wall and an outer channel wall (Figure 6, Groove 32 is defined by an Inner and Outer Wall of Housing 14), the inner and outer channel walls each having an upper end (Figure 6, Inner and Outer Wall of Housing 14 both have an upper end), the second housing piece including a joint pressurization rib that projects into the joint channel when the first and second housing pieces are mated together to pressurize the bonding material (Figure 6 and Paragraph 23, Tongue 70, reads as a joint pressurization rib, goes into groove 32 when both housing are joined and comes in contact with the bonding material), the second housing piece including an inner overhang and an outer overhang (Figure 6, Stop portion 74 acts as the outer overhang in Housing 12), and wherein the outer overhang opposes the upper end of the outer channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 6 and Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 opposes the upper end of the outer channel wall when both housing are joined together), and that the outer channel wall and the inner channel wall are flexible and is adapted to flex inwardly to accommodate inward movement of the bonding material within the joint channel. (Paragraph 21, the housings can be fabricated from a highly flexible material, therefore inner channel wall can flex inward and therefore can accommodate the bonding).
Cox fails to teach that the inner channel wall is more flexible than the outer channel wall.
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where the inner channel wall is more flexible than the outer channel wall such that inner channel wall (Figure 1-2, The second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is thinner than the First protrusion 112, acting as the outer wall, and since they are made up from the same material the thinner second protrusion 114 is more flexible).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox in view of Chen’s housing connection where the inner channel wall and the outer channel wall are flexible with an inner channel wall that is more flexible that the outer channel wall as stated in Chen since they both are utilized to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Cox in view of Chen fails to teach that the inner overhang opposes the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Reagan teaches a fiber drop terminal with a housing (Abstract, A fiber drop terminal may with a housing) where the inner overhang opposes the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 10B, Housing 1004 has an inner overhang that opposes the inner wall of the Base 1002 when they are joined).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox housing connection that has no overhang with the housing connection with overhang as stated in Reagan. Both Cox and Reagan are art that utilize joint connection to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 22, Cox in view of Reagan fails to teach that the inner wall is at least 10% more flexible than the outer channel wall.
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where the inner wall is at least 10% more flexible than the outer channel wall. (Figure 1-2, the second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is thinner than the First protrusion 112,acting as the outer wall, and since they are made up from the same material the thinner second protrusion 114 is more flexible).
Chen teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges are not taught. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the inner wall to be 10% more flexible than the outer channel wall would yield the intended results of the walls bending as both housing join together . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the inner wall is at least 10% more flexible than the outer channel wall. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Cox in view of Reagan fails to teach that the inner wall is at least 10% thinner than the outer channel wall in an outward-to-inward orientation.
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where the inner wall is at least 10% thinner than the outer channel wall in an outward-to-inward orientation (Figure 1-2, the second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is thinner than the First protrusion 112,acting as the outer wall, in an outward-to-inward orientation).
While Chen may not expressly teach the that the inner wall is at least 10% thinner than the outer channel wall of the instant claim. Chen teaches that the inner wall is thinner than the outer channel wall. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the inner wall is at least 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or 50% thinner than the outer channel wall This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 24, Cox in view of Reagan fails to teach that the inner channel wall is configured to flex more in an inward direction than the outer channel wall is configured to flex in an outer direction.
Chen teaches a assembly structure for electronics (Col 1 Line 14-24, Case for Electronics) where the inner channel wall is configured to flex more in an inward direction than the outer channel wall is configured to flex in an outer direction. (Figure 1-2, the second protrusion 114 acting as the inner wall is thinner than the First protrusion 112,acting as the outer wall, and since they are made up from the same material the thinner second protrusion 114 is more flexible and is capable of flexing more inward than the First protrusion 112 flex outward).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Cox in view of Reagan housing connection where the inner channel wall and the outer channel wall are flexible with an inner channel wall that is more flexible that the outer channel wall as stated in Chen since they both are utilized to connect two housings portions (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Reagan (US Patent No. 20060093303) and Kajiya (JP Patent No. H11284359).
Regrading Claim 12, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches that the outer overhang seats on the upper end of the outer channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Cox: Figure 6 and Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 sits on the upper end of the outer channel wall when both housing are joined together),
Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach a vent gap is defined between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Kajiya teaches a case for electric equipment with a joint (Paragraph 1 and Figure 9, Case for electric equipment with a joint) where a vent gap is defined between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 8-9, First case 4 and Second case 5 join together and create a Joint gap 12, which reads as a vent region, between surface of rib 7 acting as an inner wall and overhang of First case 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen and Reagan to incorporate a vent as stated in Kajiya. The bonding plastic is melted into the joint gap to ensure the finish is not deteriorated (Paragraph 21, Joint gap 12).
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Reagan (US Patent No. 20060093303), Kajiya (JP Patent No. H11284359) and Mitamura (JP Patent No. 2002245993).
Regrading Claim 13, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches that the outer overhang seats on the upper end of the outer channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Cox: Figure 6 and Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 sits on the upper end of the outer channel wall when both housing are joined together),
Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach a vent gap is defined between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Kajiya teaches a case for electric equipment with a joint (Paragraph 1 and Figure 9, Case for electric equipment with a joint) where a vent gap is defined between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 8-9, First case 4 and Second case 5 join together and create a Joint gap 12, which reads as a vent region, between surface of rib 7 acting as an inner wall and overhang of First case 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen and Reagan to incorporate a vent as stated in Kajiya. The bonding plastic is melted into the joint gap to ensure the finish is not deteriorated (Paragraph 21, Joint gap 12).
Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya fails to teach that the vent region are notched shaped.
Mitamura teaches a housing for electronic components (Paragraph 2, Housing) where the vent region are notches shaped (Paragraph 24 and Figure 5, Upper Case 1 has welding rib 1a, acting as inner channel wall, with Notches 1c).
Regarding the shape of vent region, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regrading Claim 14, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach that the vent notches are defined by the upper end of the inner channel wall.
Kajiya teaches a case for electric equipment with a joint (Paragraph 1 and Figure 9, Case for electric equipment with a joint) where the vent region are defined by the upper end of the inner channel wall. (Figure 8-9, First case 4 and Second case 5 join together and create a Joint gap 12, which reads as a vent region, between surface of rib 7 acting as an inner wall).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen and Reagan to incorporate a vent as stated in Kajiya. The bonding plastic is melted into the joint gap to ensure the finish is not deteriorated (Paragraph 21, Joint gap 12).
Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya fails to teach that the vent region are notched shaped.
Mitamura teaches a housing for electronic components (Paragraph 2, Housing) where the vent region are notches shaped (Paragraph 24 and Figure 5, Upper Case 1 has welding rib 1a, acting as inner channel wall, with Notches 1c).
Regarding the shape of vent region, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Reagan (US Patent No. 20060093303), Kajiya (JP Patent No. H11284359) and Ohtsuka (US Patent No. 11165233).
Regrading Claim 15, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan teaches that the outer overhang seats on the upper end of the outer channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Cox: Figure 6 and Paragraph 28, Stop portion 74 sits on the upper end of the outer channel wall when both housing are joined together),
Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach a vent region is defined at an interface between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Kajiya teaches a case for electric equipment with a joint (Paragraph 1 and Figure 9, Case for electric equipment with a joint) where a vent region is defined at an interface between the inner overhang and the upper end of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 8-9, First case 4 and Second case 5 join together and create a Joint gap 12, which can act as a vent region, between surface of rib 7 acting as an inner wall and overhang of First case 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen and Reagan to incorporate a vent as stated in Kajiya. The bonding plastic is melted into the joint gap to ensure the finish is not deteriorated (Paragraph 21, Joint gap 12).
Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya fails to teach a supplemental pressurization ribs transversely oriented relative to the joint pressurization ribs are positioned in the joint channel at least when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Ohtsuka teaches an electrical connection box with a housing joint (Abstract and Figure 4, An electrical connection box with a joint) where supplemental pressurization ribs transversely oriented relative to the joint pressurization ribs are positioned in the joint channel at least when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Col 6 Line 15-18 and Figure 3-4, The second outer wall 51, acting as a joint pressurization rib includes a plurality of reinforcing ribs 55 formed protruding from an opposed surface 51b opposite to the first outer wall 31 and are in interior space 60, acting as a joint channel, when both housing are joined).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya to incorporate a supplemental pressurization ribs as stated in Ohtsuka. The reinforcing ribs 55 can prevent the second outer wall 51 from falling inward (Col 8 Line 1-2, Reinforcing ribs 55).
Regarding Claim 16, Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya fails to teach that the supplemental pressurization ribs are integrated with the second housing piece.
Ohtsuka teaches an electrical connection box with a housing joint (Abstract and Figure 4, An electrical connection box with a joint) wherein the supplemental pressurization ribs are integrated with the second housing piece (Col 6 Line 15-18 and Figure 3-4, The second outer wall 51 in lower cover 5, acting as a joint pressurization rib includes a plurality of reinforcing ribs 55 formed protruding from an opposed surface 51b).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen, Reagan and Kajiya to incorporate a supplemental pressurization ribs in the second housing as stated in Ohtsuka. The reinforcing ribs can prevent the second outer wall 51 from falling inward (Col 8 Line 1-2, Reinforcing ribs 55).
Regarding Claim 17, Cox in view of Chen, Kajiya and Ohtsuka fails to teach that the supplemental pressurization ribs are integrated with the first housing piece.
Reagan teaches a fiber drop terminal with a housing (Abstract, A fiber drop terminal may with a housing) where the supplemental pressurization ribs are integrated with the first housing piece (Figure 10B, Housing 1004 has Ribs 1014 and 1016).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen, Kajiya and Ohtsuka to incorporate a supplemental pressurization ribs in the first housing as stated in Reagan. First housing rib 1014 and second housing rib 1016 operate to facilitate a lateral expansion of gasket and serve to form a circuitous path for moisture and/or condensed vapor proximate to mating surface (Paragraph 112, Housing rib 1014 and second Housing rib 1016).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 20070116413) in view of Chen (US Patent No. 8052001) and further in view of Reagan (US Patent No. 20060093303) and Ohtsuka (US Patent No. 11165233).
Regarding Claim 18, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach that the second housing piece includes a deflection rib parallel to the joint pressurization rib that extends past the inner channel wall at an inner side of the inner channel wall when the first and second housing pieces are mated together.
Ohtsuka teaches an electrical connection box with a housing joint (Abstract and Figure 4, An electrical connection box with a joint) where the second housing piece (Figure 4, Cover 5) includes a deflection rib (Figure 4, Second inner wall 52) parallel to the joint pressurization rib (Figure 4, Second inner wall 52 is parallel to Second outer wall 51 that acts as a pressurization rib) that extends past the inner channel wall at an inner side of the inner channel wall (Figure 4, Second inner wall 52 extends past First inner wall 32) when the first and second housing pieces are mated together (Figure 4, Frame 3 and Lower Cover 5 are joined).
However, Ohtsuka teaches a deflection rib that extends upward instead of downward. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka to incorporate that a deflection rib extends downward instead of upward. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to an particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, Cox in view of Chen and Reagan fails to teach an inner channel parallel to the joint channel into which bonding material from the joint channel can be vented, and wherein the reflection rib fits within the inner channel.
Ohtsuka teaches an electrical connection box with a housing joint (Abstract and Figure 4, An electrical connection box with a joint) where the first housing piece (Figure 4, Frame 3) defines an inner channel parallel to the joint channel (Figure 4, Inner channel that accommodates second inner wall 52 is parallel to interior space 60) into which bonding material from the joint channel can be vented (Figure 4, showcases space where bonding material can be vented to), and wherein the deflection rib fits within the inner channel (Figure 4, Inner channel that accommodates second inner wall 52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cox in view of Chen and Reagan to incorporate an inner channel as stated in Ohtsuka. First housing rib 1014 and second housing rib 1016 operate to facilitate a lateral expansion of gasket and serve to form a circuitous path for moisture and/or condensed vapor proximate to mating surface (Paragraph 112, Housing rib 1014 and second Housing rib 1016).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended claim 1 where the induction weld strength joint has an asymmetrically configured joint channel with an outer channel wall taller than an inner channel wall to create. However, Chen teaches these new limitation in Figure 1-2 where the second protrusion 114 acts as the inner wall is shorter than the First protrusion 112, acting as the outer wall, therefore creating a preferred vent path.
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761