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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 January 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amended specification was received on 20 January 2026. This amended specification is acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-21 and 23-31 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "recessed outer lip" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “recessed outer lip” in line 11 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “recessed annular lip” having a recess on the outer surface, or if the window opening further includes a recessed outer lip as a separated structure for seating the transparent cover. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as said “recessed outer lip” refers to the “recessed annular lip” having a recess on the outer surface.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "transparent window" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “transparent window” in line 12 is indefinite. It is not understood if said “transparent window” refers to the window opening with a transparent cover, of if it is another window that is transparent in the hollow body. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the “transparent window” refers to the window opening with the transparent cover.
The term “slightly” in claims 1 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation of “wherein the transparent cover is secured over the window opening wherein and is seated in the recessed outer lip” in lines 9-10 is indefinite. It is not understood if after the second “wherein” clause it was supposed to be described another limitation, or that if of said “wherein” clause or the “and” clause added after said “wherein” clause was mistakenly added in the amendment. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as that the “wherein” in question was mistakenly added in the amendment, in this way the recitation should describe the following “wherein the transparent cover is secured over the window opening
Regarding claim 30, the use of the term “a transparent cover” in line 8 is indefinite. It is not understood if said “transparent cover” is the same as the “transparent cover of line 2, or if it is an additional “transparent cover”. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as both terms refer to the same limitation.
Regarding claim 30, the use of the term “one or more protrusion” in line 12 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term is the same as the “one or more protrusions” described in line 7 of the claim. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as both terms refer to the same limitations, wherein line 12 is interpreted to be as “the one or more
Regarding claim 30, the recitation “one or more protrusion protruding from the recessed outer lip and configured to seal the foam gasket between the transparent window and the hollow body and against the one or more protrusion” in lines 12-14 is indefinite by been considered a grammatically faulty sentence, because it includes two or more main or independent clauses joined without a word to connect them or a punctuation mark to separate them creating confusion. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “one or more protrusion protruding from the recessed outer lip and configured to seal the foam gasket between the transparent window and the hollow body, and against the one or more protrusion”.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12 uses the term “one or more protrusion”, wherein line 7 it is used the term “one or more protrusions”. The Office understands that both terms refer to the same limitation. It is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 and 23-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the added language describing that the “window opening comprises a recessed annular lip formed into the hollow body so that the recessed annular lip is recessed into an outer surface of the hollow body so that the window opening on an external surface side is slightly larger than the window opening on an internal surface”, and “one or more protrusion configured to seal a gasket between the transparent window and the hollow body” is not found in the prior art of Shalev et al.
Regarding claim 16, the added language describing that the “window opening comprises a recessed outer lip formed into the hollow body so that the recessed outer lip is recessed into an outer surface of the hollow body, further so that the window opening on an external surface side is slightly larger than the window opening on an internal surface” and “one or more protrusion configured to seal a gasket between the transparent window and the hollow body” is not found in the prior art of Shalev et al.
Regarding claim 30, the added language describing that the “the window opening comprises a recessed outer lip formed into a hollow body of the sleeve, so that the recessed outer lip is recessed into an outer surface of the hollow body, so that the window opening on an external surface side is slightly larger than the window opening on an internal surface” and “one or more protrusion protruding from the recessed outer lip and configured to seal the foam gasket between the transparent window and the hollow body, and against the one or more protrusion” is not found in the prior art of Shalev et al.
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 MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights