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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bolts recited in claims 2 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. [Maeda hereinafter, US 8,089,014].
In regard to claim 1, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] an integrally formed interface seal [9], comprising: a base including a sidewall [pointed to at 9b, Fig. 5] configured to surround at least a portion of a switch housing [7] configured to house an interface pad [11]; a first lip [pointed to at 9c, Fig. 5] extending inward relative to the sidewall; and a second lip [43] from the first lip and away from the first lip parallel to the sidewall, wherein the second lip [43] is configured to be compressed against the switch housing [7] to hermetically seal a conductor [3] secured to the interface pad [11] from an external environment. In regard to the limitation that the switch housing is a disconnector switch housing, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 4, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1, wherein the sidewall [pointed to at 9b, Fig. 5] and the switch housing [7] are cylindrical, part of the sidewall being configured to abut and surround a periphery of the switch housing. In regard to the limitation that the switch housing is a disconnector switch housing, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 5, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1, wherein the first lip [pointed to at 9c, Fig. 5] is orthogonal to the sidewall [pointed to at 9b, Fig. 5].
In regard to claim 18, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1, wherein the sidewall [pointed to at 9b, Fig. 5] extends along an entire axial height of the switch housing [7] adjacent the interface pad [11]. In regard to the limitation that the switch housing is a disconnector switch housing, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 20, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1, wherein the interface seal is a unitary body.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bloch [US 8,519,286].
In regard to claim 8, Bloch discloses [in Figs. 1-3] a system comprising: a switch including a housing [12] for at least partially housing an interface pad [20]; a conductor [48] configured to be secured to the r switch via the interface pad [20] ;and an interface seal [14, 16] configured to surround and seal the interface pad [20] of the switch and at least part of the conductor [48] secured to the interface pad [20] from an external environment. In regard to the limitation that the switch is a disconnector switch, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 9, Bloch discloses [in Figs. 1-3] the system of claim 8, wherein the interface seal [14, 16] includes a plurality of threaded openings [openings in 14 that receive 40], and wherein the conductor [48] is configured to be secured to the interface pad [20] of the switch with a plurality of bolts [40], each bolt [40] configured to mate with one of the plurality of threaded openings. In regard to the limitation that the switch is a disconnector switch, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 11, Bloch discloses [in Figs. 1-3] the system of claim 8, wherein the interface seal [14, 16] includes at least two bolt interfaces [on surface of 14], each bolt interface having a plurality of bolt openings [openings on 14 that receive 40] for receiving the bolts [40].
In regard to claim 24, Bloch discloses [in Figs. 1-3] the system of claim 8, wherein the interface seal is a unitary body [when assembled].
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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. [Maeda hereinafter, US 8,089,014] in view of Sugimoto et al. [Sugimoto hereinafter, US 2004/0200709].
In regard to claim 7, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1, wherein the second lip [43] is semi-circular in cross section. Maeda does not disclose that the second lip is configured to compress laterally into first and second expansion spaces adjacent the second lip. Sugimoto teaches [in Fig. 5] that a second lip [18b] is configured to compress laterally into first and second expansion spaces adjacent the second lip [18b]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the second lip of Maeda so that it is compresses laterally into first and second expansion spaces to ensure a secure seal.
In regard to claim 19, Maeda discloses [in Fig. 5] the interface seal of claim 1,
Maeda does not disclose that the second lip defines a first expansion space and a second expansion space, wherein the first expansion space is defined at least partially between the interface pad and the second lip and the second expansion space is defined at least partially between the second lip and the sidewall. Sugimoto teaches [in Fig. 5] that the second lip [18b] defines a first expansion space and a second expansion space, wherein the first expansion space is defined at least partially between the interface pad [12a] and the second lip [18b] and the second expansion space is defined at least partially between the second lip [18b] and the sidewall [of 11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first and second expansion spaces of Sugimoto with the device of Maeda in order to ensure a secure seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 17, and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, in combination with other limitations, the interface seal further comprising at least two bolt interfaces extending away from the base is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 6, in combination with other limitations, the first lip being
configured to fill a corresponding rectangular corner formed by the conductor is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 10, in combination with other limitations, the conductor including a conductor interface plate and a conductor interface pad, the conductor interface pad configured to abut the interface pad of the disconnector switch and the conductor interface plate having bolt openings each configured to receive one of the plurality of bolts is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 21, in combination with other limitations, a seal shaft extending away from a base of the interface seal and configured to encase a corresponding shaft of the conductor, the seal shaft having a height from the base greater than a height of the bolt interfaces from the base is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 22, in combination with other limitations, the system further comprising a plurality of seal plugs configured to seal the plurality of bolt openings is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights