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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Leopold (US 7947901 B2, hereinafter Leopold)
Claim 1 Leopold teaches an outdoor-mountable electronic apparatus comprising:
a housing including a top portion (top of 102e, fig 1), a bottom portion (bottom of 102e and bottom of 102f together, fig 1), and one or more side portions (side of 102e, fig 1) interconnecting the top portion and the bottom portion, the bottom portion including an extended end section (section that connects 102e and 102f, fig 1) at one end of the housing, the extended end section of the bottom portion being directed upward (since 102f is directed upward), the one or more side portions and the extended end section of the bottom portion defining a cavity (cavity of fig 1);
one or more electrical connectors mounted within the cavity (col 5 lines 38-41 recite ‘the device receptacle outlets 102a and 102b is adapted to receive a two-prong or three-prong electrical plug and, in combination, are generally referred to 40 as a single gang electrical receptacle’, see also fig 1); and
an angled access door (122) coupled to the top portion of the housing such that the access door opens upwardly and closes downwardly (fig 1), the access door being sized and shaped to cover the cavity when the access door is in a closed position (fig 2).
Claim 2 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the access door is hinged at the top portion of the housing (figs 1, 2).
Claim 3 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the access door is pivotally coupled to the top portion of the housing (figs 1, 2).
Claim 4 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a seal installed along perimeter edges of the one or more side portions and along the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing to mitigate moisture intrusion when the access door is in the closed position (col 5 lines 22-24 recites ‘recessed weatherproof cover housing 102 is made of molded plastic and the faceplate 102/ and walls 102e are integral to one another and environmentally sealed’, col 8 lines 50-55 recite ‘one or more sealing elements (not shown) such as, for example, gaskets, may be coupled to one or more of the walls 102e of the weatherproof cover housing 102 so that, when the door 122 is in the closed configuration, the gaskets sealingly engage the door 122 and the walls 102e’).
Claim 8 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the access door includes a spring-loaded hinge for biasing the access door toward the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing when the access door is in the closed position (col 6 lines 26-31 recite ‘biasing elements (not shown) such as, for example, torsion springs, so that the hinge assemblies 124a and 124b and/or 124c and 124d apply biasing forces against the door 122, urging the door 122 towards the weatherproof cover housing 102 to place the door 122 in the closed configuration’).
Claim 10 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a wall (102f, fig 1) interconnecting the top portion and the bottom portion of the housing, wherein the one or more electrical connectors are mounted to the wall (fig 1).
Claim 11 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a powerline connector (connector mounted to 112a-c, fig 4) mounted through an aperture (between 102f of fig 1 and 104, 107 of fig 4) defined by the bottom portion of the housing, the powerline connector being configured to receive electrical power from an external power source (source that powers 112a-c, fig 4).
Claim 13 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing is curved upward (fig 1).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold in view of Dinh (US 7476806 B2, hereinafter Dinh)
Claim 5 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one cable access port for passage of at least one connector cable
Dinh teaches an extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines (col 5 lines 5-8 recite ‘The space 125 between cord holder extensions 126 and 128 and resilient member 124 is sufficient for an electrical cord 127 attached to outlet 50 or 52 to extend therebetween’) at least one cable access port (125, fig 3) for passage of at least one connector cable (127, fig 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Dinh into the device of Leopold. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold in the above manner for the purpose of having more electrical connections (Dinh fig 4 shows more outlets, col 8 lines 45-46 recite ‘sized to accommodate one or more than one conventional electrical device’).
Claim 6 Leopold and Dinh teach the electronic apparatus of claim 5, further comprising:
at least one removable plug for covering the at least one cable access port (Leopold col 7 lines 35-36 recite ‘cable openings 128a-128d are covered by a removable cable cap’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Leopold into the device of Leopold in view of Dinh. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold in view of Dinh in the above manner for the purpose of protecting against water and weather.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold in view of Dinh (US 7476806 B2, hereinafter Dinh), further in view of Ladewig (US 9261251 B1, hereinafter Ladewig)
Claim 7 Leopold and Dinh teach the electronic apparatus of claim 5, but fails to specifically teach:
at least one gasket positioned within the at least one cable access port to mitigate intrusion of moisture through the at least one cable access port after the at least one connector cable has been passed through the at least one cable access port.
Ladewig teaches at least one gasket (310) positioned within at least one cable access port (col 6 lines 51-54 recite ‘In general, the gasket 310 fills any open space between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340, creating a seal between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340’ while col 6 lines 57-63 recite ‘Because the outline of the attachment face 300 is smaller than the outline of the gasket 310 and the end face of the extruded heatsink 104, the gasket plate 340, which is rigid, is relied upon to compress the outer edges of the gasket 310 against the end face of the extruded heatsink 104 when the extruded heatsink 104 is mechanically secured’) to mitigate intrusion of moisture through the at least one cable access port after the at least one connector cable has been passed through the at least one cable access port (col 6 lines 41-43 recite ‘In general, the gasket 310 fills any open space between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340, creating a seal between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Ladewig into the device of Leopold and Dinh. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold and Dinh in the above manner for the purpose of protecting against moisture.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold in view of Ladewig (US 9261251 B1, hereinafter Ladewig)
Claim 9 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach that the access door defines at least one aperture and wherein the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one corresponding threaded aperture usable for securing the access door to the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing using at least one fastener.
Ladewig teaches an access door (door of 220) defines at least one aperture and wherein the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one corresponding threaded aperture usable for securing the access door to the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing using at least one fastener (col 5 lines 35-39 recite ‘Securing clips 214 are mounted or otherwise affixed to the cabinet 210 using screws, bolts, clips, tabs, adhesives, or other suitable mechanical fastening means. The securing clips 214 secure the cover 220 to the cabinet 210’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Ladewig into the device of Leopold. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold and Jarrell in the above manner for the purpose of securely holding the apparatus closed during severe weather events.
Claims 12, 14-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold in view of Jarrell (US 20170301220 A1, hereinafter Jarrell)
Claim 12 Leopold teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach that the housing is configured to be horizontally mounted to a powerline connector atop a streetlight fixture
Jarrell teaches housing is configured to be horizontally mounted to a powerline connector atop a streetlight fixture ([0106] recites ‘The optical sensor may include an electrical plug (not shown) that may be attached to or plugged into an electrical receptacle (not shown) of the streetlight unit’, see also fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the streetlight as taught by Jarrell into the device of Leopold. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold in the above manner for the purpose of providing a weatherproof electrical plug on a streetlight unit (see Jarrell [0106])
Claim 14 (currently amended): A streetlight-mountable electronic apparatus comprising:
a housing including a top portion (top of 102e, fig 1), a bottom portion (bottom of 102e and bottom of 102f together, fig 1), and one or more side portions (side of 102e, fig 1) interconnecting the top portion and the bottom portion, the bottom portion including an extended end section (section that connects 102e and 102f, fig 1) at one end of the housing, the extended end section of the bottom portion being directed upward (since 102f is directed upward), the one or more side portions and the extended end section of the bottom portion defining a cavity (cavity of fig 1);
one or more electrical connectors mounted within the cavity (col 5 lines 38-41 recite ‘the device receptacle outlets 102a and 102b is adapted to receive a two-prong or three-prong electrical plug and, in combination, are generally referred to 40 as a single gang electrical receptacle’, see also fig 1);
a powerline connector (connector mounted to 112a-c, fig 4) mounted through an aperture (between 102f of fig 1 and 104, 107 of fig 4) defined by the bottom portion of the housing, the powerline connector being configured to receive electrical power (source that powers 112a-c, fig 4) ; and
a hinged, angled access door (122, fig 1) coupled to the top portion of the housing such that the access door opens upwardly and closes downwardly (figs 1, 2), the access door being sized and shaped to cover the cavity when the access door is in a closed position (fig 2)
However Leopold fails to specifically teach the powerline connector being configured to receive electrical power from a streetlight lighting fixture
Jarrell teaches a powerline connector being configured to receive electrical power from a streetlight lighting fixture ([0106] recites ‘The optical sensor may include an electrical plug (not shown) that may be attached to or plugged into an electrical receptacle (not shown) of the streetlight unit’, see also fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the streetlight as taught by Jarrell into the device of Leopold. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold in the above manner for the purpose of providing a weatherproof electrical plug on a streetlight unit (see Jarrell [0106])
Claim 15 Leopold and Jarrell teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 14, wherein the access door includes a spring-loaded hinge for biasing the access door toward the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing when the access door is in the closed position (Leopold col 6 lines 26-31 recite ‘biasing elements (not shown) such as, for example, torsion springs, so that the hinge assemblies 124a and 124b and/or 124c and 124d apply biasing forces against the door 122, urging the door 122 towards the weatherproof cover housing 102 to place the door 122 in the closed configuration’).
Claim 16 Leopold and Jarrell teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 14, further comprising:
a seal installed along edges of the one or more side portions and the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing to mitigate moisture intrusion when the access door is in the closed position (col 5 lines 22-24 recites ‘recessed weatherproof cover housing 102 is made of molded plastic and the faceplate 102/ and walls 102e are integral to one another and environmentally sealed’, col 8 lines 50-55 recite ‘one or more sealing elements (not shown) such as, for example, gaskets, may be coupled to one or more of the walls 102e of the weatherproof cover housing 102 so that, when the door 122 is in the closed configuration, the gaskets sealingly engage the door 122 and the walls 102e’).
Claim 20 (currently amended): A streetlight-mountable wireless networking device comprising:
a low-profile housing including a top portion (top of 102e, fig 1), a bottom portion (bottom of 102e and bottom of 102f together, fig 1), and one or more side portions (side of 102e, fig 1) interconnecting the top portion and the bottom portion, the bottom portion including an extended end section (section that connects 102e and 102f, fig 1) at one end of the housing, the extended end section being curved upward and forming at least part of a cavity that contains at least one cable access port (fig 1); and
a hinged, angled access door (122) coupled to the top portion of the housing such that the access door opens upwardly and closes downwardly (fig 1), the access door being sized and shaped to rest against perimeter edges of the one or more side portions of the housing and a perimeter edge of the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing when the access door is in a closed position (fig 2).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold in view of Jarrell (US 20170301220 A1, hereinafter Jarrell), further in view of Dinh (US 7476806 B2, hereinafter Dinh), still further in view of Ladewig (US 9261251 B1, hereinafter Ladewig)
Claim 17 Leopold in view of Jarrell teach the electronic apparatus of claim 14, but fails to teach the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one cable access port for passage of at least one connector cable, the electronic apparatus further comprising:at least one gasket positioned within the at least one cable access port to mitigate intrusion of moisture through the at least one cable access port after the at least one connector cable is passed through the at least one cable access port.
Dinh teaches the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines (col 5 lines 5-8 recite ‘The space 125 between cord holder extensions 126 and 128 and resilient member 124 is sufficient for an electrical cord 127 attached to outlet 50 or 52 to extend therebetween’) at least one cable access port (125, fig 3) for passage of at least one connector cable (127, fig 3)
However Dinh still fails to teach the electronic apparatus further comprising:at least one gasket positioned within the at least one cable access port to mitigate intrusion of moisture through the at least one cable access port after the at least one connector cable is passed through the at least one cable access port
Ladewig teaches at least one gasket (310) positioned within the at least one cable access port (col 6 lines 51-54 recite ‘In general, the gasket 310 fills any open space between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340, creating a seal between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340’ while col 6 lines 57-63 recite ‘Because the outline of the attachment face 300 is smaller than the outline of the gasket 310 and the end face of the extruded heatsink 104, the gasket plate 340, which is rigid, is relied upon to compress the outer edges of the gasket 310 against the end face of the extruded heatsink 104 when the extruded heatsink 104 is mechanically secured’) to mitigate intrusion of moisture through the at least one cable access port after the at least one connector cable has been passed through the at least one cable access port (col 6 lines 41-43 recite ‘In general, the gasket 310 fills any open space between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340, creating a seal between the extruded heatsink 104 and the gasket plate 340’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Dinh into the device of Leopold. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold in the above manner for the purpose of having more electrical connections (Dinh fig 4 shows more outlets, col 8 lines 45-46 recite ‘sized to accommodate one or more than one conventional electrical device’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Ladewig into the device of Leopold, Jarrell and Dinh. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold, Jarrell and Dinh in the above manner for the purpose of protecting against moisture.
Claim 18 (original): The electronic apparatus of claim 17, further comprising:
at least one removable plug for covering the at least one cable access port (Leopold col 7 lines 35-36 recite ‘cable openings 128a-128d are covered by a removable cable cap’)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leopold and Jarrell in view of Ladewig (US 9261251 B1, hereinafter Ladewig)
Claim 19 Leopold and Jarrell teach the electronic apparatus of claim 14, but fails to specifically teach that the access door defines at least one aperture and wherein the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one corresponding threaded aperture usable for securing the access door to the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing using at least one fastener.
Ladewig teaches an access door (door of 220) defines at least one aperture and wherein the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing defines at least one corresponding threaded aperture usable for securing the access door to the extended end section of the bottom portion of the housing using at least one fastener (col 5 lines 35-39 recite ‘Securing clips 214 are mounted or otherwise affixed to the cabinet 210 using screws, bolts, clips, tabs, adhesives, or other suitable mechanical fastening means. The securing clips 214 secure the cover 220 to the cabinet 210’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Ladewig into the device of Leopold and Jarrell. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Leopold and Jarrell in the above manner for the purpose of securely holding the apparatus closed during severe weather events.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are made moot by the new rejections as shown 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 DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. 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.
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841