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
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.
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denzene et al (US 6,219,258) in view of Chou et al (US 2020/0221600).
As per claim 9 Denzene et al discloses: An electronic unit comprising:
a printed circuit board 72 (PCB) {figure 3}; a plurality of electronics positioned on the PCB 72; a housing 30 including a cover 32 and a base 34 {figure 2} that define an opening for receiving the PCB 72 and the plurality of electronics; and
a first gasket 80 positioned on an outer periphery of the PCB 72 and being configured to at least partially remove electromagnetic interference generated from the plurality of electronics { [column 5, lines 60-63] ]The gasket 80 provides electrical contact across the interface between the walls 36,40 in the cover 32 and the exposed ground traces 76 on the circuit board 72, thereby creating the EMI shield. } and to housing 30 from penetrating into the opening of the housing 30.
Regarding claim 9 Denzene et al is silent as to: a gasket preventing liquid from penetrating the opening of the housing. With respect to claims 1, 9 and 17 Chou et al discloses: [0019] Moreover, the joint between the metallic casing and the non-metallic end cover is sealed by the sealing gasket so as to prevent water or liquid from entering into the interior of the waterproof casing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the apparatus of Denzene et al with a gasket preventing liquid form penetrating the opening of the housing as taught by Chou et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to provide a gasket preventing liquid form penetrating the opening of the housing so as to stop water or liquid from damaging the internal components in the housing.
As per claim 10 Denzene et al discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the housing 30 includes a connector support 100 to receive a plurality of connectors 106, the connector support 100 being positioned between the cover 32 and the base 34 and further being positioned on a side of the housing 30 {figure 2}.
Regarding claim 9 Denzene et al is silent as to: the base 34 of the housing 30 including a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base 34 on the side of the housing 30 to prevent liquid from exterior of the housing from penetrating into the opening of the housing. With respect to claim 9Chou et al depicts in figure 2 and discloses: the base of the housing 1 including a second gasket 5 positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on the side of the housing 1 {figure 2} to prevent liquid from exterior of the housing 1 from penetrating into the opening of the housing 1.
Regarding claim 12 Denzene et al is silent as to: the connector support includes a first rib extending outwardly therefrom to compressively engage the second gasket to prevent the liquid from exterior of the housing from penetrating into the opening of the housing. With respect to claim 12 Chou et al depicts in figure 3 and discloses: the connector support includes a first rib 41 extending outwardly therefrom to compressively engage the second gasket 5 to prevent the liquid from exterior of the housing from penetrating into the opening of the housing 1 {figure 3}.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the base of the housing of Denzene et al with a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on the side of the housing as taught by Chou et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to provide the base of the housing with a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on the side of the housing “so as to prevent water or liquid from entering into the interior of the waterproof casing.” See [0019] of Chou et al.
As per claim 13 Denzene et al discloses:
Regarding claim 13 Denzene et al is silent as to: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the connector support 100 further includes a plurality of first projections extending outwardly therefrom, and wherein each of the plurality of projections includes a second rib extending outwardly therefrom to engage the base 34 of the housing 30. With respect to claim 13 Chou et al discloses: the connector support further includes a plurality of first projections 42 extending outwardly therefrom {figure 3}, and wherein each of the plurality of projections 42 includes a second rib extending outwardly therefrom to engage the base of the housing 1 {figure 2}.
As per claim 14 Denzene et al discloses:
Regarding claim 14 Denzene et al is silent as to: the base 34 of the housing 30 includes a plurality of second projections extending outwardly therefrom to engage each of the second ribs. With respect to claims 6, 14 and 19 Chou et al discloses: the base of the housing includes a plurality of second projections 42 extending outwardly therefrom {figure 3} to engage each of the second ribs 33 {figure 2}.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to the apparatus of Denzene et al with the connector support further including a plurality of first projections extending outwardly therefrom, and wherein each of the plurality of projections includes a second rib extending outwardly therefrom to engage the base of the housing as taught by Chou et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to an apparatus with the connector support further including a plurality of first projections extending outwardly therefrom, and wherein each of the plurality of projections includes a second rib extending outwardly therefrom to engage the base of the housing so as to firm securely the support and the base, having a gasket therebetween, with fasteners such as screws, thereby preventing dust, liquid and EMI from entering the housing.
As per claim 15 Denzene et al discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first gasket 80 is made from a composition of silicone and metal to at least partially remove the electromagnetic interference {[column 6, lines 1-4] While any number of gasket materials well known in the art are suitable, both the preformed gasket 80 and the dispensed gasket 80 may be made form gold/copper filled silicone}.
As per claim 16 Denzene et al discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first gasket 80 is dispensed in liquid form onto the cover 32 of the housing 30 and cured in place {figures 2 & 3}. { Note: As the claims are directed to an apparatus, per se, the method limitations have only been accorded weight to the extent that they affect the structure of the completed apparatus. Note that "[d]etermination of patentability in 'product-by-process' claims is based on product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by process [i.e., “dispensed liquid form” and “cured in place”], and thus product in such claim is unpatentable if it is the same as, or obvious form, product of prior art, even if prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Furthermore, note that a "[p]roduct-by-process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made [i.e., “dispensed liquid form” and “cured in place”] is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations", In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1976). }
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 17 and 20 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant assert in the second full paragraph on page 2 the following:
Independent claim 9 has been amended to recite recitations previously presented in claim 11. For example, claim 9 now recites in part "a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on a side of the housing." In rejecting the previous version of claim 11, the Office Action admits that Denzene fails to disclose this recitation and cites to Chou as allegedly curing the admitted deficiency. However, neither Denzene nor Chou disclose more than one gasket. Additionally, neither reference discloses "a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on a side of the housing." Any supposed gasket of Chou encircles the entire perimeter of the apparatus. (See Figure 3, element 5, and paragraph [0018]). Accordingly, Chou fails to teach or suggest "a second gasket positioned on an outer perimeter of the base on a side of the housing," and claim 9 is patentable for at least this reason.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated supra, Chou shows in figures 2 and 3 second gasket 5 positioned on the outer perimeter of the base on the side of housing 1 to prevent liquid from exterior of the housing 1 from penetrating into the opening of the housing 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID D DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/DAVID D DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
DDD