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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments filed on 12/05/23 with respect to claims 1,7-10,12 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the modified Dumani et al. does not discloses “ two adjustable mounting brackets arranged on opposite sides of the body each configured to support a floor material. These arguments are not persuasive. As disclosed in Fig.35 of Dumani, two 500 legs that are on the opposite sides of the body of 240 which are configured to support a sub-floor grade or deck as shown in paragraph [0145] of Dumani. Therefore, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim (s) 1,8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumani et al. (US 2018/0199452 A1) hereinafter Dumani in view of Drane et al. (US 20040123997) hereinafter Drane.
Regarding claim 1, Dumani discloses an electrical box (Fig.35) comprising: a body (240) defining an interior space; a cover (250) attached to the body and two adjustable mounting brackets (see two 500 on opposite sides of 240) arranged on opposite sides of the body (see Fig.35) each configured to support a floor material (see paragraph [0145]); wherein the adjustable mounting brackets are configured to be adjusted to a plurality of different positions in a vertical direction of the body (see extendable legs 500).
Dumani fails to specifically disclose the cover including a cover door configured to be moved from a closed position to an open position.
Drane discloses a cover (14; Fig.1A) including a cover door (12;Fig.1A) configured to be moved from a closed position to an open position (see Fig.1A and Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Drane to modify the electrical box of Dumani in order to provide the user an easy way to access electrical components within an electrical box that will also provide water resistance.
Regarding claim 8, Dumani discloses wherein an exterior surface of a bottom of the body includes a first connection geometry (246 and 244; Fig.20), and wherein the first connection geometry is configured to engage with a connection geometry of a support structure (270 and 244) such that the body is securely supported by the support structure when the first connection geometry is engaged with the connection geometry ( 246 engages with 274 and has a pin 244 go through it to support 240; see Fig.23).
Regarding claim 12, Dumani discloses electrical box comprising: a body (240;Fig.20) defining an interior space; a cover attached to the body (see 250 in Fig.23); wherein an exterior surface of a bottom of the body includes a first connection geometry (246 and 244; Fig.20), and wherein the first connection geometry is configured to engage with a connection geometry of a support structure (270) such that the body is securely supported by the support structure when the first connection geometry is engaged with the connection geometry ( 246 engages with 274 and has a pin 244 go through it to support 240).
Dumani fails to specifically disclose the cover including a cover door configured to be moved from a closed position to an open position.
Drane discloses a cover (14; Fig.1A) including a cover door (12;Fig.1A) configured to be moved from a closed position to an open position (see Fig.1A and Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Drane to modify the electrical box of Dumani in order to provide the user an easy way to access electrical components within an electrical box that will also provide water resistance.
Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumani in view of Drane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birckel et al. (FR 3041977A1) hereinafter Birckel.
Regarding claim 7, Dumani fails to specifically disclose wherein the cover comprises an anti-slip top surface design.
Birckel discloses a cover (2; Fig.6) comprises an anti-slip top surface design (7 and 8; Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Birckel to modify the cover of Dumani in order to prevent injury of utility workers.
Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumani in view of Drane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hemingway et al. (US 10020645 B2) hereinafter Hemingway.
Regarding claims 9, a modified Dumani fails to specifically disclose wherein the first connection geometry includes one or more openings that are configured to drain water from within the interior space to an area outside the body.
Hemingway discloses in Fig.1, wherein the first connection geometry ( bottom of 10) includes an opening(36) that are configured to drain water from within the interior space to an area outside the body (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Hemingway to modify the electrical box of Dumani to prevent water or moisture accumulation in the electrical box.
Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumani in view of Drane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US 11159005 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Dumani fails to specifically disclose a partition wall, wherein the interior space comprises a front interior space and a rear interior space and the partition wall is arranged between the front interior space and the rear interior space.
Baldwin discloses a partition wall (100;Fig.2), wherein the interior space comprises a front interior space (see left space in 24) and a rear interior space (see right space in 24) and the partition wall is arranged between the front interior space and the rear interior space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Baldwin to modify the electrical box of Dumani in order to provide organization to different electrical components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6,11, and 13-17 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.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 2-6 and 17, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a device box enclosure configured to be in a resting position when the cover door is in a closed position; and wherein an opening face of the device box enclosure is configured to face in an at least partially downward facing direction when the device box enclosure is in the resting position " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1.
Regarding claims 11, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the partition wall comprises one or more brush- filled partition openings, wherein brushes of the one or more brush-filled openings are configured to conform to power cords when inserted therethrough" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 and 10.
Regarding claims 13-16, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a device box enclosure configured to be in a resting position when the cover door is in a closed position; and wherein an opening face of the device box enclosure is configured to face in an at least partially downward facing direction when the device box enclosure is in the resting position " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 12.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848