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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As amended claim 1 recites “sealing structure comprises a groove, and the flange structure is clamped in the groove of the sealing structure when the cabinet door is closed.” It is unclear how the specification and drawings would reasonably convey to one skilled in the art the flange structure is clamped in the groove of the sealing structure when the cabinet door is closed. Applicant’s sealing structure is designed with a first side plate 311, making it unclear how the flange would be inserted or clamped intro the groove of the sealing structure. Because the flange structure would come into contact with the first side plate when the door is closed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub No.: 20190090369 (“Wilson et al”) in view of CN 218644158 (“ZHANG et al.”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson et al. discloses an outdoor cabinet, comprising:
a cabinet body (12);
a cabinet door (20) being connected to the cabinet body (12);
a flange structure (36); and
a sealing structure (42) having a groove (between 46 and 48 ,see figs.2- 3)
the flange structure (36) is clamped in the groove between 46 and 48).
Wilson et al. also discloses the bottom of the door has sealing structure has an auxiliary notch (56, see Figs. 2 & 4) but does not disclose the one of the flange or sealing structure arranged on the cabinet body and the other on the other on the cabinet door, and the flange having a drain notch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified that one of the flange structure and sealing structure could be arranged on the cabinet body, where the other of the flange structure and sealing structure is arranged on the cabinet door, such a medication would only require a rearranging parts of an invention and would still maintain the watertight seal between the flange structure and sealing structure as is well known in the art to having ordinary skill.
Zhang et al discloses a body having a door (1) the bottom of the door has a flange structure (2) with one or more holes along the flange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified that one of the flange structure could be configured with notches or drain holes to permit excess water to drain away from the cabinet, as demonstrated by Zhang et al. As modified, the flange drainage notch and the auxiliary drainage notch are arranged in positional correspondence with each other, and the flange drainage notch and the auxiliary drainage notch are configured to discharge water entering the groove. ** Note: the phrase positional correspondence has been broadly interpreted to mean vicinity, as the specification does provide a special meaning .
Regarding Claim 2, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein the groove (along the flange) comprises a first side plate, a bottom plate, and a second side plate connected in sequence, the auxiliary drainage notch is provided at the first side plate, and the second side plate abuts against the flange structure for sealing. The seal (42) is does not have a second side plate. Zhang et al also demonstrates how the door flange could be clamped to a seal (5) configured with a first side, bottom and second plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the seal be configured in a different shape as alternate arraignment for creating a water tight seal between the door and cabinet, as demonstrated by Zhang et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein the number of flange drainage notches is at least two, the at least two flange drainage notches are provided at a bottom of the flange structure, wherein at least one of the at least two flange drainage notches is located on a first side of the flange structure (26, and at least another one of the at least two flange drainage notches is located on a second side of the flange structure (as modified by Zhang et al.). It would be obvious one having skill in the art to provide additional drainage notch along the flange, making it easier for the water to drain out of the flange and seal .
Regarding Claim 4, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) discloses wherein the flange drainage notch comprises a first drainage notch and a second drainage notch, the auxiliary drainage notch comprises a third drainage notch and a fourth drainage notch, wherein the first drainage notch and the third drainage notch are arranged in positional correspondence with each other, and the second drainage notch and the fourth drainage notch are arranged in positional correspondence with each other. Zhang et al. teaches the benefit of having multiple drainage holes. It would be obvious to have duplicate flange notches and duplicate axillary notches along the flange and sealing structure to drain excess water away from the cabinet.
** Note: the phrase positional correspondence has been broadly interpreted to mean vicinity, as the specification does provide a special meaning .
Regarding Claim 6, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein the third drainage notch ( on the seal) is formed at the first side plate or the second side plate, and the fourth drainage notch is formed at the first side plate or the second side plate Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein an area of the auxiliary drainage notch is greater than an area of the flange drainage notch. It would obvious to have a large auxiliary notch over the flange drainage water so that the water is not blocked from drainage.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein the groove (52) is a U-shaped groove (52), and a distance between the first side plate and the second side plate gradually decreases along a direction away from the bottom plate.
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 14 the combination discloses (Wilson et al.) wherein an area of the auxiliary drainage notch is greater than an area of the flange drainage notch. It would obvious to have a large auxiliary notch over the flange drainage water so that the water is not blocked from drainage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 13 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:30-5:30.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached on 5712703742. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637