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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed February 22, 2024 and December 20, 2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received February 22, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received February 22, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-12 are directed to a sealing member. Certain limitations of claims 1-12 are directed to elements which are not the sealing member. For example, claim 1 recites “the sealing member … comprising a securing structure being connected to a positioning structure on the member to be sealed …”. The positioning structure is not a component of the sealing member but is a feature of the member to be sealed.
Since the claims are drawn to the sealing member, a prior art reference can anticipate or render obvious the sealing member claim if it discloses or makes obvious the sealing member structure. The reference need not disclose a positioning structure as a component of the sealing member because the positioning member is not a component of the sealing member.
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 5 and 9-12 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 5 is unclear as it defines a range with a lower limit of 0mm. It is unclear how 0mm defines an interference amount when it would instead appear to be a value of zero and therefore no amount. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 9-12 are indefinite. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “circle” in claims 9-12 is used by the claim to mean the structure shown in Figs. 12-13 while the accepted meaning is “a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuels et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0223853).
As to claim 1, Samuels teaches of a sealing member for sealing of a member to be sealed, comprising:
a main body 54 (o-ring, paras. [0043]-[0045], Figs. 7-11); and
a securing structure 68/64 provided on the main body, the securing structure being connected to a positioning structure (52a, 52b) on the member to be sealed, to secure the sealing member on the member to be sealed; wherein the surface of the securing structure facing the member to be sealed is provided with a recess, the recess being recessed in a direction away from the positioning structure to prevent the sealing member from being fitted reversely. In this case the recess corresponds to the narrower stem region 68 between the main body 54 of the o-ring/sealing member and the inner larger barb element 64.
As to claim 2, while the features of the positioning member of claim 2 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1), as shown in Figs. 7-11 holes 52A/52B in the member to be sealed which receives the securing structures 68/64 achieves securing of the sealing member 54 and the member to be sealed.
As to claim 3, while the features of the positioning member of claim 3 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1), as shown in Figs. 7-11, a dimension of the accommodating structure (holes 52A/52B) is equal to a distance between an upper surface of the securing structure 68/64 and a bottom wall of the recess, the upper surface of the securing structure 68/64 being a surface on the securing structure corresponding to the recess (Figs. 9 and 11).
As to claim 4, the securing structure 68/64 is in interference fit with the positioning structure to achieve securing between the sealing member 54 and the member to be sealed (Figs. 9 and 11, for example).
As to claim 5, the features of the positioning member of claim 5 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1), as shown in Figs. 7-11 an interference face is formed on all sides of the securing structure 68/64, the interference face is in interference fit with the positioning structure. Samuels teaches (para. [0046]) that each barb 64 has a diameter greater than the remainder of the associated stem 68. The barb 64 may be shaped similar to the remainder of tether 56A or 56B, but is larger in cross-sectional area so that, once the barb 64 is pulled through the hole 52A or 52B, extraction of the barb 64 from the hole is difficult. The interference amount between the interference face and the position structure is intended use relationship only defined by a sealing member in combination with the positioning structure of the particular member to be sealed.
As to claim 6, and end of the securing structure 68/64 away from the main body is provided with a protrusion 68 and a lateral dimension of the protrusion along the main body is greater than the accommodation portion along the main body so that securing the between the securing structure and the member to be sealed is reinforced in the mounting direction (Figs. 9 and 11 for example).
As to claims 7-8, multiple securing members 68/64 are distributed in a spaced manner on the main body 54 of the sealing member (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claims 13-14, Samuels discloses an electronic apparatus and battery including a box provided with an opening 24 and a cove 26 along with the sealing member 54, where the cover and box form an accommodating cavity through the sealing member for accommodating a battery device (Fig. 1, paras. [0036]-[0038]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 5 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0223853) as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 5, an interference face is formed on all sides of the securing structure 68/64, the interference face is in interference fit with the positioning structure. Samuels is silent as to the particular interference amount between the interference face and the positioning structure. While the relationship is defined by both the securing structure and features of the member to be sealed which are separate from the claimed sealing member, selecting such an interference amount to the interference face of the securing structure with the positioning member tuned to a range from 0-0.3mm would have been reasonably apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Samuels teaches (para. [0046]) that each barb 64 has a diameter greater than the remainder of the associated stem 68. The barb 64 may be shaped similar to the remainder of tether 56A or 56B, but is larger in cross-sectional area so that, once the barb 64 is pulled through the hole 52A or 52B, extraction of the barb 64 from the hole is difficult.
It is evident that there is an interference face formed on all sides of the securing structure, these structures are barbs which include portions that deform during sealing to hold at an interference face on one side of the member to be sealed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the range for the interference amount to any suitable dimension including 0-0.3mm since it would have predictably provided sufficient interference fit between the sealing member and member to be sealed. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (CN214589064U) in view of Samuels et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0223853).
As to claim 1, Ye teaches of a sealing member 5 for sealing of a member to be sealed, comprising:
a main body 501 (Fig. 2); and
a securing structure 502/503 provided on the main body, the securing structure being connected to a positioning structure 8 on the member to be sealed, to secure the sealing member on the member to be sealed.
As to claim 2, while the features of the positioning member of claim 2 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1), as shown in Fig. 2 slots 8 in the member to be sealed which receives the securing structures 502/503 achieves securing of the sealing member 5 and the member to be sealed.
As to claim 4, the securing structure 502/503 is in interference fit with the positioning structure 8 to achieve securing between the sealing member 5 and the member to be sealed (Fig. 2, for example).
As to claim 5, the features of the positioning member of claim 5 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1). Furthermore, an interference face is formed on all sides of the securing structure 502/503, the interference face is in interference fit with the positioning structure
As to claim 6, and end of the securing structure 502/503 away from the main body is provided with a protrusion 503 and a lateral dimension of the protrusion along the main body is greater than the accommodation portion along the main body so that securing the between the securing structure 502/503 and the member to be sealed is reinforced in the mounting direction (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claims 7-8, multiple securing members 502/503 are distributed in a spaced manner on the main body 5 of the sealing member (Fig. 2 for example).
As to claims 13-14, Ye discloses an electronic apparatus and battery including a box provided with an opening and a cover 3 along with the sealing member 5, where the cover 3 and box 1 form an accommodating cavity through the sealing member 5 for accommodating a battery device (Figs. 1-2,).
Ye does not explicitly teach of the surface of the securing structure facing the member to be sealed is provided with a recess, the recess being recessed in a direction away from the positioning structure to prevent the sealing member from being fitted reversely (claim 1) or in a mounting direction of the sealing member, a dimension of the accommodating portion is equal to a distance between an upper surface of the securing structure and a bottom wall of the recess, the upper surface being a surface on the securing structure corresponding to the recess (claim 3)..
Samuels is drawn to the same field of endeavor, sealing of electronic devices including battery enclosure using a sealing member with a securing structure.
As to claim 1, Samuels teaches of a sealing member for sealing of a member to be sealed, comprising:
a main body 54 (o-ring, paras. [0043]-[0045], Figs. 7-11); and
a securing structure 68/64 provided on the main body, the securing structure being connected to a positioning structure (52a, 52b) on the member to be sealed, to secure the sealing member on the member to be sealed; wherein the surface of the securing structure facing the member to be sealed is provided with a recess, the recess being recessed in a direction away from the positioning structure to prevent the sealing member from being fitted reversely. In this case the recess corresponds to the narrower stem region 68 between the main body 54 of the o-ring/sealing member and the inner larger barb element 64.
As to claim 3, while the features of the positioning member of claim 3 are not part of the sealing member (the positioning member is part of the member to be sealed as defined in claim 1), as shown in Figs. 7-11, a dimension of the accommodating structure (holes 52A/52B) is equal to a distance between an upper surface of the securing structure 68/64 and a bottom wall of the recess, the upper surface of the securing structure 68/64 being a surface on the securing structure corresponding to the recess (Figs. 9 and 11).
An interference face is formed on all sides of the securing structure 68/64, the interference face is in interference fit with the positioning structure
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the securing structure of Ye where the surface of the securing structure facing the member to be sealed is provided with a recess, the recess being recessed in a direction away from the positioning structure to prevent the sealing member from being fitted reversely (claim 1) or in a mounting direction of the sealing member, a dimension of the accommodating portion is equal to a distance between an upper surface of the securing structure and a bottom wall of the recess, the upper surface being a surface on the securing structure corresponding to the recess (claim 3) as taught by Samuels since it would have provided a sealing structure having improved interference fit between the seal and the member to be sealed.
Ye and Samuels are silent as to the particular interference amount between the interference face and the positioning structure.
While the relationship is defined by both the securing structure and features of the member to be sealed which are separate from the claimed sealing member, selecting such an interference amount to the interference face of the securing structure with the positioning member tuned to a range from 0-0.3mm would have been reasonably apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Samuels teaches (para. [0046]) that each barb 64 has a diameter greater than the remainder of the associated stem 68. The barb 64 may be shaped similar to the remainder of tether 56A or 56B, but is larger in cross-sectional area so that, once the barb 64 is pulled through the hole 52A or 52B, extraction of the barb 64 from the hole is difficult.
It is evident that there is an interference face formed on all sides of the securing structure, these structures are barbs which include portions that deform during sealing to hold at an interference face on one side of the member to be sealed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the range for the interference amount to any suitable dimension including 0-0.3mm since it would have predictably provided sufficient interference fit between the sealing member and member to be sealed. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 may 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the sealing member of at least claim 9 wherein the sealing member further comprises a connecting segment, the connecting segment is used to connect two adjacent securing structures, and the connecting segment and the two adjacent securing structures enclose to form a “circle”, such that securing between the sealing member and the member to be sealed is reinforced.
The particular sealing member design of claim 9 comprising the connecting segment connecting two adjacent structures to enclose to form a “circle” (what appears to be two arced portions connected by the connecting segment as shown in Figs. 12-13) is held to be novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 5,031,924 discloses a sealing member with plural protrusions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights