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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11 and 13-15 are currently amended; claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 16-19 are original; claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 06/24/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection of Cairns and Walding necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of claim 12 wherein “…he tapered top's innermost portion is a ring of smaller dimension than the external device's outermost dimension…” renders the claim indefinite because the external device is not an element of the claimed invention and it is improper to seek to define claimed structure based on some unclaimed element. In this case, the boundaries of the claim cannot be properly ascertain because one would not know whether their invention infringed the instant claim until someone else later added the external device. Accordingly, the shield itself must be defined by its structural elements instead of relying upon a comparison with an unascertained element. The Examiner suggests the use of the term “configured”.
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 pre-AIA 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, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cairns (U.S. Pat. No. 7464728 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Cairns teaches a shield for protecting internal componentry against temperature fluctuation rates, comprising:
a two-piece housing (15) having a first half (32) and a second half (34),
each half having a vertical wall (walls of 32, 34), wherein the vertical wall has vertical edges (inner and outer edges along the vertical axis), and wherein the vertical edges of the first half are configured to mate, directly or indirectly, with the vertical edges of the second half to form a single unit that defines an inner cavity (central cavity of 10); and
the inner cavity having an open upper end and an annular space bounded by an inner wall of the vertical walls, the annular space configured to receive, without contact, an external device (see Figs. 1-8 for configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Cairns teaches the vertical wall comprises a tapered top (tapered portion near annotation 41).
Regarding claim 3, Cairns teaches the vertical wall comprises a bottom flange (flange defining 41).
Regarding claim 4, Cairns teaches each vertical wall comprises a rib (rib defining space for receiving 20).
Regarding claim 12, Cairns teaches the tapered top’s innermost portion (near annotation 41) is a ring of smaller dimension than the external device’s outermost dimension.
Regarding claim 13, Cairns teaches the shield is capable of being used with the external device’s comprises a voltage sensor.
Regarding claim 14, Cairns teaches the shield is capable of being used with the external device’s comprises a current sensor.
Alternatively, claims 1, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cairns (U.S. Pat. No. 7464728 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Walding teaches a shield for protecting internal componentry against temperature fluctuation rates, comprising:
a two-piece housing (10) having a first half (12) and a second half (14),
each half having a vertical wall (walls of 12, 14), wherein the vertical wall has vertical edges (inner and outer edges along the vertical axis), and wherein the vertical edges of the first half are configured to mate, directly or indirectly, with the vertical edges of the second half to form a single unit that defines an inner cavity (central cavity for receiving 20); and
the inner cavity having an open upper end and an annular space bounded by an inner wall of the vertical walls, the annular space configured to receive, without contact, an external device (see Figs. 1-8 for configuration).
Regarding claim 5, Walding teaches the vertical wall comprises a tapered top (Fig. 1; near annotation 16), a bottom flange (flange receiving portion of 52 or 40) for attaching the shield to a baseplate via screws or bolts [intended use/capable], and a rib (12h) extending from the tapered top to the bottom flange [in a width/thickness direction].
Regarding claim 11, Walding teaches a shield for protecting internal componentry against temperature fluctuation rates, comprising:
a housing (10) having a first half (12) and a second half (14); the first half and the second half each having a vertical wall (vertical portions of 12, 14 for mating to one another), wherein the vertical wall has vertical edges, and wherein the vertical edges of the first half are configured to mate, directly or indirectly, with the vertical edges of the second half to form a single unit; the single unit shaped to correspond with the internal componentry, elongated holes or ribs (12h) configured to connect the shield to the internal componentry, wherein the elongated holes or ribs are configured to allow adjustment of the positioning of the shield with respect to the internal componentry and a sealing means (52) disposed between the vertical edges of the two halves to allow adjustment of the positioning of the shield with respect to the two halves.
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.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns (U.S. Pat. No. 7464728 B2).
Regarding claims 7-9, Cairns teaches the gap between the vertical wall and the external device. However, Cairns 1is silent to disclose the dimension of the gap.
The Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the gap that is between 0.25 and 2 inches or 0.25 and 1 inches or 0.25 and 0.75 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would have been to accommodate the sensor of desired size.
Claims 6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns (U.S. Pat. No. 7464728 B2) in view of Dauksas (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20220238288 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cairns teaches the first half and the second half. However, Cairns does not explicitly teach the cycloaliphatic epoxy. Dauksas the cycloaliphatic epoxy shield (Dauksas; 47) having the cycloaliphatic epoxy [Dauksas 0021].
Cairns and Dauksas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Cairns having the first half and the second half comprising cycloaliphatic epoxy. The motivation would have been to make the invention weather resistant/durable.
Regarding claim 15, Walding teaches a sunshield, comprising:
a structure (10); the structure being molded into a half-cylinder shape; and
the structure having a top taper, a bottom flange (flange for receiving portion of 52 or for receiving 40), and a rib (12h) extending from the top taper to the bottom flange.
Walding does not explicitly teach the structure made of cycloaliphatic epoxy. Dauksas the structure (Dauksas; 47) made of cycloaliphatic epoxy [Dauksas 0021].
Walding and Dauksas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Walding having the first half and the second half comprising cycloaliphatic epoxy. The motivation would have been to make the invention weather resistant/durable.
Regarding claim 16, Walding teaches the half-cylinder shape. However, Lamara does not explicitly teach the half-cylinder shape is an elliptic-cylindrical shape. The Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the structure that is half along the vertical plane and made in elliptical shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The motivation would have been to make adapt a desired shape conforming to the inner objects.
Regarding claim 17, Walding teaches the bottom flange (flange for receiving 40) has one or more holes (14f) for attaching the sunshield to a sensor housing via screws or bolts.
Regarding claim 18, Walding teaches the structure is installed such that it shields the sensor housing from direct sunlight.
Regarding claim 19, Walding teaches the structure. Walding is silent to disclose
a second structure of cycloaliphatic epoxy molded into a second half-cylinder shape having a second top taper, a second bottom flange, and a second rib extending from the second top taper to the second bottom flange. However, the Examiner notes that providing a duplicated part e.g. a second structure similar to the first structure is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Lamara having the second structure of cycloaliphatic epoxy molded into a second half-cylinder shape having a second top taper, a second bottom flange, and a second rib extending from the second top taper to the second bottom flange. The motivation would have been to accommodate more contacts/pads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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 MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights