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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmieh (US 2019/0042000) in view of Chien (US 2015/0340826).
Regarding claim 1 Kasmieh discloses:
A wiring device assembly comprising:
a wiring device module (e.g. 250 FIG.2A) having an electrical wiring device (e.g. 230 FIG.2A), a mounting plate (e.g. 105 FIG.7A) configured to be mounted to an electrical box (e.g. 210 FIG.2A) and a seal member (e.g. "elastomeric seal" paragraph [0046]) comprising a first face contacting the mounting plate (e.g. described paragraph [0046]) and between the electrical wiring device, the electrical wiring device being attached to the mounting plate (e.g. shown FIG.2A) and having at least one sensor (e.g. 292 FIG.2C); and
a wall plate (e.g. 110 FIG.7A) that is releasably attachable to the mounting plate (e.g. shown FIG.7B).
Kasmieh does not explicitly disclose:
a second surface contacting the electrical wiring device
Chien teaches:
a seal member (e.g. disclosed paragraph [0120]) comprising a first face contacting the mounting plate (e.g. 81 Fig 8A) and a second surface contacting the electrical wiring device (e.g. 80 Fig 8) (e.g. described paragraph [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Chien, as pointed out above, in Kasmieh, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: Better fit between the outlet and the wall cover (described paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 2 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the seal member comprises a gasket (e.g. as described paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 4 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the wall plate is releasably attachable to the mounting plate using one or more snap-fit connections (e.g. shown snapping into space in 105 FIG.7B).
Regarding claim 5 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
each of the one or more snap-fit connections comprises a flexible arm extending from the wall plate (e.g. top extension of 110 FIG.7B) configured to engage the mounting plate (e.g. shown engaging the inner top of 105 FIG.7A).
Regarding claim 6 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
each flexible arm engages a ledge of the mounting plate to releasably attach the wall plate to the mounting plate (e.g. shown/indicated FIG.7A-FIG.7B).
Regarding claim 7 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the electrical wiring device comprises a solid state switch (e.g. 260 FIG.2C) used to control one or more electrical loads (e.g. shown/indicated FIG.2C).
Regarding claim 8 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the solid state switch comprises one of a single pole switch (e.g. described paragraph [0003]) and three-way switch.
Regarding claim 9 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the wall plate has a substantially smooth outer surface (e.g. shown FIG.7A).
Regarding claim 10 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the at least one sensor comprises a at least one of capacitive type sensor (e.g. touch, paragraph [0045]) or a time of flight sensor.
Regarding claim 11 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensors, a touch sensor (e.g. touch, paragraph [0004]), a motion sensors or a thermal sensor.
Regarding claim 12 Kasmieh discloses:
A wiring device assembly comprising:
a wiring device module (e.g. 250 FIG.2A) having an electrical wiring device (e.g. 230 FIG.2A), a mounting plate (e.g. 105 FIG.7A) configured to be mounted to an electrical box (e.g. 210 FIG.2A) and a seal member (e.g. "elastomeric seal" paragraph [0046]) comprising a first face contacting the mounting plate (e.g. described paragraph [0046]) and between the electrical wiring device, the electrical wiring device being attached to the mounting plate (e.g. shown FIG.2A) and having at least one sensor (e.g. 292 FIG.2C); and
a wall plate (e.g. 110 FIG.7A) that is releasably attachable to the mounting plate (e.g. shown FIG.7B) using one or more snap-fit connections (e.g. shown snapping into space in 105 FIG.7B), each snap fit connection including a flexible arm extending from the wall plate (e.g. top extension of 110 FIG.7B)
Kasmieh does not explicitly disclose:
a second surface contacting the electrical wiring device
Chien teaches:
a seal member (e.g. disclosed paragraph [0120]) comprising a first face contacting the mounting plate (e.g. 81 Fig 8A) and a second surface contacting the electrical wiring device (e.g. 80 Fig 8) (e.g. described paragraph [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Chien, as pointed out above, in Kasmieh, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: Better fit between the outlet and the wall cover (described paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 13 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the seal member comprises a gasket (e.g. as described paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 15 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
each flexible arm extending from the wall plate is configured to engage the mounting plate (e.g. engaging at top of 105 shown FIG.7A).
Regarding claim 16 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
each flexible arm engages a ledge of the mounting plate to releasably attach the wall plate to the mounting plate (e.g. shown FIG.7A).
Regarding claim 17 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the electrical wiring device comprises a solid state switch (e.g. 260 FIG.2C) used to control one or more electrical loads (e.g. shown/indicated FIG.2C).
Regarding claim 18 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the solid state switch comprises one of a single pole switch (e.g. described paragraph [0003]) and three-way switch.
Regarding claim 19 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the wall plate has a substantially smooth outer surface herein the wall plate has a substantially smooth outer surface (e.g. shown FIG.7A).
Regarding claim 20 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive type sensor (e.g. touch, paragraph [0045]) or a time of flight sensor.
Regarding claim 21 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensors, a touch sensor (e.g. touch, paragraph [0004]), a motion sensors and a thermal sensor.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasmieh (US 2019/0042000) in view of Chien (US 2015/0340826) in further view of Monteiro et al. (US 2007/0253192).
Regarding claim 3 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
The wiring device assembly according to claim 2,
Kasmieh does not explicitly disclose:
the gasket comprises a neoprene gasket
Monteiro teaches:
the gasket (e.g. 17 FIG.3A) comprises a neoprene gasket (e.g. described paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Monteiro as pointed out above, in Kasmieh, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “increasing the shock absorbing capacity” paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 14 Kasmieh as modified discloses:
The wiring device assembly according to claim 13,
Kasmieh does not explicitly disclose:
the gasket comprises a neoprene gasket
Monteiro teaches:
the gasket (e.g. 17 FIG.3A) comprises a neoprene gasket (e.g. described paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Monteiro as pointed out above, in Kasmieh, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “increasing the shock absorbing capacity” paragraph [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 are the publications of the same patent family as the newly cited reference in the rejection above.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this non-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 non-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 non-final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (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 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841