DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 2015/0303675) in view of Takagi et al. (US 7,080,860).
With regard to claim 1, Schwarz discloses a device (10, as seen in Figs. 1-2) for the pressure-tight passage of a line through a feedthrough in a wall that separates a first pressure area from a second pressure area, the line having a deformable jacket (Examiner notes these recitations in the preamble are considered intended use limitations and are given little patentable weight. As the device of Schwarz is capable of such as use (e.g. as can receive a line (11) with a deformable jacket (13), and as it can be passed through a feedthrough (i.e. as all lines are capable of) in a wall that separates two pressure areas (i.e. as all walls are capable of) it anticipates such), the device comprising a sleeve (18 with 23) for surrounding the line in the area of the feedthrough (as seen in Figs. 1-2 it surrounds the line and is capable of doing such in an area of a feedthrough), the sleeve having an annular constriction, notch, or groove (as seen in Fig. 2 at 27 when crimped), between which a material of the jacket is configured to be compressed by forming into an integral ring seal acting between the jacket and the sleeve (as seen in Fig. 2 it is capable of this. Examiner notes this is a further narrowing of the prior intended use/capability), and wherein the sleeve is configured to be pressure-tightly connected to the wall around the feedthrough (Examiner notes that this is considered an intended use limitation which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, etc. it can in some manner be connected as claimed (e.g. directly or indirectly)), at least from one side (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, etc. depending on what wall and feedthrough it is used with), and wherein the sleeve is an integral part of a radially outwardly extending flange (27, as seen as radially outwardly extending in Figs. 1-2 and monolithic/integral with the sleeve) which can be connected to the wall (i.e. as seen in Figs. 1-2 as the illustrated flange is capable of such as it could abut a wall in some manner, could be connected to a wall through intervening elements, etc.).
Schwarz fails to disclose that the sleeve has at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves; wherein an axial position of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is a location other than a free end of the sleeve; and wherein an axial spacing between the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is the same as an axial width of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves.
Takagi discloses a device (as seen in Fig. 2B, etc.) for the pressure-tight passage of a line through a feedthrough in a wall that separates a first pressure area from a second pressure area, the line having a deformable jacket (Examiner notes these recitations in the preamble are considered intended use limitations and are given little patentable weight. As Takagi is capable of such as use (e.g. as it has a deformable jacket 24, as can receive a line therein, and as it can be passed through a feedthrough (i.e. as all lines are capable of) in a wall that separates two pressure areas (i.e. as all walls are capable of) it anticipates such), the device comprising a sleeve (16) for surrounding the line in the area of the feedthrough (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2B, etc.), the sleeve having at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, grooves (i.e. at the outer surface of 16 as seen in Fig. 2B, etc.), between which a material of the jacket is configured to be compressed by forming into an integral ring seal acting between the jacket and the sleeve (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2B, etc.), wherein an axial position of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is a location other than a free end of the sleeve (as seen in Fig. 2B, etc. there are at least two such spaced apart from a free end thereof), wherein an axial spacing between the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves (i.e. one of the plurality of different spacings between the spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves) is the same as an axial width (i.e. one of the plurality of different axial widths the spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves) of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves (i.e. as there are a plurality of each axial width and axial spacing due to the curved portions thereof Examiner has selected each to be equal. Furthermore Examiner notes that a narrower interpretation would likely necessitate a 112(a) rejection as the original disclosure does not appear to disclose a specific interpretation of the axial spacing and widths that are exactly the same), and wherein the sleeve is configured to be either pressure-tightly connected to the wall around the feedthrough (Examiner notes that this is considered an intended use limitation which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2B, etc. it can in some manner be connected as claimed (e.g. directly or indirectly)), at least from one side (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2B, etc. depending on what wall and feedthrough it is used with).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have modified the device of Schwarz to have the sleeve have at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves, wherein an axial position of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is a location other than a free end of the sleeve, and wherein an axial spacing between the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is the same as an axial width of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves as taught by Takagi (e.g. either the notches in combination with the crimp shown in Schwarz Fig. 2 or the notches in place of the single crimp as shown in Schwarz). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefit of providing plural barriers to fluid leakage of the approximate same strength to provide additional balanced sealing. Additionally and/or alternatively such could also be considered to provide easier deformation during crimping (i.e. as opposed to one larger crimp) and/or such (e.g. when used in combination with the crimp of Schwarz) would provide additional strength and explosion-proofing.
With regard to claim 2, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the line is an electrical line (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any elongated tubular element run therethrough. Additionally see para. [0001], etc.).
With regard to claim 3, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the line is an optical line (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any elongated tubular element run therethrough).
With regard to claim 4, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the line a fluid line (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any elongated tubular element run therethrough).
With regard to claim 5, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the jacket is either plastic or metal (examiner notes that this limitation is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with such a material jacket of the line).
With regard to claim 6, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the sleeve is made of a ductile metal (as detailed in para. [0008], etc. it is a metal and due to its illustrated deformation (see between Figs. 1 and 2, etc.) it at least has some amount of ductility).
With regard to claim 7, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that a material of the sleeve (as detailed in para. [0008], etc. it is a metal) is matched to a material of the wall with regard to the coefficient of thermal expansion (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Takagi is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any wall including one of the same material as the sleeve and thus having at least approximately the same coefficient of thermal expansion).
With regard to claim 8, the combination discloses that the material of the jacket is configured to be compressed and formed into another integral ring seal between one of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves and another of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves (i.e. as seen in Figs. 2, etc. of Takagi in combination with Figs. 1-2 of Schwarz as there are three spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves the sleeve is capable of forming another integral ring seal between another two of them, and thus the material of the jacket is configured for such. Additionally Examiner notes the portions of the claim related to the jacket are still considered a further narrowing of the prior intended use as the jacket was not previously positively required by claim 1 on which this claim relies).
With regard to claim 9, the combination discloses that each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves are arranged equidistantly from one another and are each the same size (i.e. similar to the rejection of claim 1 above, i.e. as there are a plurality of each axial width and axial spacing due to the curved portions thereof, as seen in Fig. 2B of Takagi, Examiner has selected each to be equal. Furthermore Examiner notes that a narrower interpretation would likely necessitate a 112(a) rejection as the original disclosure does not appear to disclose a specific interpretation of the axial spacing and widths that are exactly the same).
With regard to claim 10, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the jacket is configured to have a support sleeve provided directly or indirectly under the jacket, which sleeve serves as an abutment when the sleeve is formed (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use/capability limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use/capability of the sleeve) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any jacket including one having a support sleeve).
With regard to claim 11, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the sleeve is further configured to be an integral part of the wall (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use of the sleeve) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with housing/wall and be integral thereto in some manner (e.g. rigidly affixed directly thereto)).
With regard to claim 12, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the sleeve is further configured to be bonded or welded to the wall at least from one side (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use of the sleeve) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with wall and can be welded thereto as it is at least a metal).
With regard to claim 14, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the wall is part of a housing of an electrical device (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use of the device) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with essentially any wall in some manner).
With regard to claim 18, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the line is a fiber optical cable (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any elongated tubular element).
With regard to claim 19, the combination (Schwarz) discloses that the line is a pneumatic or hydraulic line (Examiner notes that this is also an intended use limitation (e.g. it is a further narrowing of the prior intended use) which Schwarz is capable of as seen in Fig. 2, as it can be used with any elongated tubular element).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new/amended ground(s) of rejection above. In so much as they many apply to the current grounds of rejection Applicant’s arguments filed 07 August 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is with regards to the restriction of claim 21, asserting that the features it shares with the elected invention are special technical features. However as all of the shared features are fully rejected (see the above grounds of rejection) they are thus not considered to be special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art. Specifically Applicant appears to be arguing that because claim 1 is rejected under a combination (i.e. obviousness) that the shared technical features make a contribution over the prior art. This is not persuasive as the term “contribution” is with respect to both novelty and inventive step (analogous for these purposes to obviousness). See MPEP 1850 Rule 40 section II, which stated “Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step”.
Applicant’s next argument is that adding multiple grooves to the sleeve of Schwarz would allegedly render it unsuitable for its intended purpose (i.e. being an explosion proof sleeve). This argument is not persuasive as there is no specific teaching away from such a modification and the modified device would still be expected, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to function in the desired manner by the Schwarz reference. Regarding the sections of Schwarz that Applicant cites: Examiner notes that these are merely described as a “preferred embodiment” (see para. [0016], etc.) and there is no disclosure that such a feature must be present in all embodiments or is somehow critical. Schwarz (and those of ordinary skill) would clearly understand that slight modifications can be made to the device of Schwarz and have it still function for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s next argument is that allegedly Schwarz does contemplate having the crimp located anywhere other than a free end of the sleeve. While Examiner notes Schwarz may not contemplate such as it shows the crimp at the free end, the combination makes such obvious as the notches of Takagi are spaced from a free end of the sleeve. While the crimp of Schwarz is shown in the illustrated embodiments as at the free end nothing in Schwarz discredits the proposed modification and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize it would still function for it's intended purpose of providing an explosion-proof sealing as it would still clearly be capable of providing the desired barrier between the core and sheath of the cable of Schwarz. This is especially apparent with the modification of adding the spaced apart notches (crimps) to the single crimp of Schwarz Fig. 2 (as detailed above) which would be expected by one of ordinary skill to further increase the resistance of such a device by increasing the pressure between such even further. Examiner also notes that this modification would not result in moving the crimp of the Schwarz reference.
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends claiming:
1. (Currently Amended) A device for the pressure-tight passage of a line through a feedthrough in a wall that separates a first pressure area from a second pressure area, the line having a deformable jacket, the device comprising a sleeve for surrounding the line in the area of the feedthrough, the sleeve having at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves, between which a material of the jacket is configured to be compressed by forming into an integral ring seal acting between the jacket and the sleeve, wherein an axial position of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is a location other than a free end of the sleeve, wherein an axial spacing between the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves is the same as an axial width of each of the at least two spaced apart annular constrictions, notches, or grooves, wherein the sleeve is configured to be pressure-tightly connected to the wall around the feedthrough, at least from one side, [[and]] wherein the sleeve is an integral part of a radially outwardly extending flange which can be connected to the wall and which has axial holes therein for mounting the flange to the wall and an O-ring groove thereon for receiving an O-ring for sealing the flange to the wall, and wherein there are no screw threads present on the device.
While it is expected that the above amendment would overcome the prior art of record and may result in an allowable claim any final determination of allowability would depend on the exact claim language presented and any necessary additional search and/or consideration required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new/amended 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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights