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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 8, 11, 13, 15 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf (DE 10046157).
Regarding Claim 1, Scharf discloses a grommet ( 6’ and 6’’ , fig 5) for securely engaging a component (cable), the grommet comprising: a resilient structure ( Para 0014 - flexible material of 6’ and 6’’) arranged along a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of 6’ and 6’’), having an external surface defined by a grommet perimeter in a grommet front view ( external surface of 6’ and 6’’with the perimeter of 6 in the front view); a groove (groove on the external surface of 6’ and 6’’) arranged on the external surface (external surface of 6’ and 6’’) and configured to accept a portion of the component therein to facilitate retention of the grommet on the component (6’ and 6’’configured to accept a portion of the cable therein to facilitate retention of the grommet 6’ and 6’’on the cable).
at least one slit (9’, 9’’) configured to fragment at least a part of the external surface via extending, in a grommet side view, into the groove (slit fragments part of the surface 6’ and 6’’into the groove of 6’ and 6’’), thereby facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out (slit facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out).
Regarding Claim 3, Scharf discloses the grommet, wherein the groove extends around at least a part of the perimeter of the grommet (Scharf – groove of 6’ and 6’’ extends around the perimeter of grommet ).
Regarding Claim 5, Scharf discloses the grommet, wherein the external surface includes a first surface, an opposing second surface (Scharf - radially inner and outer surfaces of 6’ and 6’’ ), and a third surface defining a grommet wall arranged between the first and second surfaces, and wherein the groove is arranged on the third surface (Scharf – groove of 6’ and 6’’ on the third surface between the first and second radial surfaces of 6’ and 6’’ ).
Regarding Claim 6, Scharf discloses the grommet, wherein the at least one slit includes a plurality of slits, and wherein each slit extends across the third surface, from the first surface to the second surface (Scharf – plurality of slits across the third surface of 6’ and 6’’).
Regarding Claim 7, Scharf discloses the grommet.
Scharf does not disclose wherein the resilient structure is a molded element (6’ and 6’’)and each slit (9’ and 9’’) is molded into the resilient structure (6’ and 6’’).
This recitation of the process step of the claimed invention does not 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. Since either process step(s) will result in the same product, the reference therefore is capable of meeting the claim limitations regarding the process step(s) rendering them unobvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 8, Scharf discloses the grommet, wherein the resilient structure is a molded element (6’ and 6’’) and each slit is cut into the resilient structure subsequent to molding thereof (9’ and 9’’ cut into 6’ and 6’’).
This recitation of the process step of molding of the claimed invention does not 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. Since either process step(s) will result in the same product, the reference therefore is capable of meeting the claim limitations regarding the process step(s) rendering them unobvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 11, Scharf discloses a component assembly (fig 5) comprising: a component (cable) defining an interfacing aperture (aperture of 6’ and 6’’); and a grommet (6’ and 6’’) configured to securely engage the component at the interfacing aperture (6’ and 6’’ configured to securely engage the component at the interfacing aperture), the grommet including: a resilient structure (Para 0014 - flexible material of 6’ and 6’’ ) arranged along a longitudinal axis (axis of 6’ and 6’’), having an external surface defined by a grommet perimeter in a grommet front view (external surface of 6’ and 6’’ with its perimeter in the front view); a groove (groove of 6’ and 6’’ on the external surface) arranged on the external surface and configured to accept a portion of the component therein to facilitate retention of the grommet on the component (groove of 6’ and 6’’ accepts portion of cable).
at least one slit (9’ and 9’’) configured to fragment at least a part of the external surface via extending, in a grommet side view, into the groove (slit fragments part of the surface into the groove of 6’ and 6’’), thereby facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out (slit facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out).
Regarding Claim 13, Scharf discloses the component assembly, wherein the groove extends around at least a part of the perimeter of the grommet (Scharf – groove of 6’ and 6’’ extends around the perimeter of 6’ and 6’’).
Regarding Claim 15, Scharf discloses the component assembly, wherein the external surface includes a first surface, an opposing second surface, and a third surface defining a grommet wall arranged between the first and second surfaces (Scharf - inner and outer radial surfaces of 6’ and 6’’ ), and wherein the groove is arranged on the third surface (Scharf – groove of 6’ and 6’’ on the third surface between the inner and outer radial surfaces of 6’ and 6’’).
Regarding Claim 16, Scharf discloses the component assembly, wherein the at least one slit includes a plurality of slits (Scharf – plurality of slits 9’ and 9’’), and wherein each slit extends across the third surface, from the first surface to the second surface (Scharf – plurality of slits across 6’ and 6’’).
Regarding Claim 17, Scharf discloses the component assembly.
Scharf does not disclose wherein the resilient structure is a molded element (6’ and 6’’) and each slit (9’ and 9”) is molded into the resilient structure (6’ and 6’’).
This recitation of the process step of molding of the claimed invention does not 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. Since either process step(s) will result in the same product, the reference therefore is capable of meeting the claim limitations regarding the process step(s) rendering them unobvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 18, Scharf discloses the component assembly.
Scharf does not disclose wherein the resilient structure (6’ and 6’’) is a molded element and each slit (9’ and 9””) is cut into the resilient structure subsequent to molding thereof.
This recitation of the process step of molding of the claimed invention does not 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. Since either process step(s) will result in the same product, the reference therefore is capable of meeting the claim limitations regarding the process step(s) rendering them unobvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 20, Scharf discloses a motor vehicle component subassembly (fig 5) comprising: a motor vehicle component (cable) defining an interfacing aperture (aperture of 6’ and 6’’); and a grommet (6’ and 6’’ ) configured to securely engage the motor vehicle component (cable) at the interfacing aperture (aperture of 28), the grommet including: a resilient structure arranged along a longitudinal axis (Para 0014 - flexible material of 6’ and 6’’ ), having an external surface defined by a grommet perimeter in a grommet front view (external surface of 6’ and 6’’ with its perimeter in the front view); a groove (groove of 6’ and 6’’ on the external surface) arranged on the external surface (fig 5) and configured to accept a portion of the motor vehicle component therein to facilitate retention of the grommet on the motor vehicle component (groove of 6’ and 6’’ configured to accept a portion of the motor vehicle cable therein to facilitate retention of the grommet 6’ and 6’’ on the motor vehicle cable).
a plurality of slits (9’ and 9””) configured to fragment at least a part of the external surface via extending, in a grommet side view , into the groove (slit fragments part of the surface into the groove of 6’ and 6’’), thereby facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the motor vehicle component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out; wherein: each slit ends within the resilient structure in a rounded section; the rounded section is one of pre-molded and pierced after molding; the external surface includes a first surface, an opposing second surface, and a third surface defining a resilient structure wall arranged between the first and second surfaces; and the groove is arranged on the third surface (slit facilitating bending of the resilient structure at each respective slit to aid installation of the grommet into and/or removal from the component and minimize risk of unintentional grommet push-out).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf in view of Milton (U.S. PG Pub # 20090130891).
Regarding Claim 2, Scharf discloses the grommet.
Scharf does not disclose wherein the resilient structure is constructed from an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber.
However, Milton teaches wherein the resilient structure is constructed from an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber (Para 0018 – EPDM rubber material of 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the resilient structure of Scharf with that of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success so that the flexible material gives a tight seal and an appropriate holding effect on the cable (Milton Para 0018).
Regarding Claim 12, Scharf discloses the component assembly.
Scharf does not disclose wherein the resilient structure is constructed from an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber.
However, Milton teaches wherein the resilient structure is constructed from an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber (Para 0018 – EPDM rubber material of 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the resilient structure of Scharf with that of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success so that the flexible material gives a tight seal and an appropriate holding effect on the cable (Milton Para 0018).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharf in view of Pimentel (U.S. PG Pub # 20130233615).
Regarding Claim 4, Scharf discloses the grommet.
Scharf does not disclose further comprising a lubricant arranged in the groove.
However, Pimentel teaches further comprising a lubricant arranged in the groove (Para 0029 – grease in the groove of the groove).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the groove of the grommet of Scharf with a lubricant of Pimentel with a reasonable expectation of success so that the lubricant provides water blocking properties (Pimentel Para 0029).
Regarding Claim 14, Scharf discloses the component assembly, further comprising a lubricant arranged in the groove.
Scharf does not disclose further comprising a lubricant arranged in the groove.
However, Pimentel teaches further comprising a lubricant arranged in the groove (Para 0029 – grease in the groove of the groove).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the groove of the grommet of Scharf with a lubricant of Pimentel with a reasonable expectation of success so that the lubricant provides water blocking properties (Pimentel Para 0029).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 19 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the grommet as claimed in independent claims of the application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the reference without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 9, Scharf discloses the grommet.
The prior art does not disclose wherein each slit ends within the resilient structure in a rounded section.
Regarding Claim 19, Scharf discloses the component assembly.
The prior art does not disclose wherein each slit ends within the resilient structure in a rounded section, and wherein the rounded section is one of pre-molded and pierced after molding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. Susmitha Koneru whose telephone number is 571.270.5333. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights