DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 9 April 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reich et al. (US 20230020124 A1), hereinafter referred to as Reich et al.
Regarding claim 1, Reich et al. teaches a grommet (100) for feeding a stranded element through an opening, the grommet (100) comprising (paragraph 27: damper 100):
a first grommet element (102) comprising an elongated first body (112, 113) with a first collar (122) radially extended relative to the first body (112, 113) (Figs. 2- 3; paragraphs 27 and 29-30: first half 102 has elongate portions 112, 113 with an extruded collar 122); and
a second grommet element (103) comprising an elongated second body (112, 113) with a second collar (122) radially extended relative to the second body (112, 113) (Figs. 2- 3; paragraphs 27 and 29-30: second half 103 also has elongate portions 112, 113 with an extruded collar 122);
wherein the first grommet element (102) and the second grommet element (103) are formed separately from each other (Fig. 2, paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 2, Reich et al. teaches the grommet (100 of claim 1, wherein the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) are each configured to be brought together at respective contact surfaces to complement each other circumferentially and/or radially to form the grommet (100) (see Fig. 1, paragraph 27: first and second halves 102, 103 enclose the line 101).
Regarding claim 3, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) each comprise a cavity (106, 107), which cavities complement each other when the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) are brought together in a direction transverse to their longitudinal extension direction, for receiving the stranded element (101) (paragraph 28: the inner shell faces 106, 107 of halves 102 and 103, respectively, bear against the outer circumference of the wire 101).
Regarding claim 4, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) are arrangeable to contact each other transverse to their elongated extension with the first collar (122) and the second collar (122) facing away from each other (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 27-29: corresponding portions of each half 102, 103 face in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 5, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) are arrangeable offset relative to each other along their elongated extension (Fig. 2: the sections 112 of the upper and lower halves 102, 103 are offset relative to each other and the sections 112 of upper and lower halves 102, 103 are offset relative to each other).
Regarding claim 9, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first body (112, 113) and the second body (112, 113) comprises a groove (117, 118) formed on a longitudinal side facing away from the collar for attaching a tie (104) (Fig. 3, paragraphs 27 and 29: latching hooks 117, 118 formed in collars 112, 113 for receiving a tie 104).
Regarding claim 11, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein the first grommet element (102) and the second grommet element (103) are insertable into the opening from opposite directions or from opposite axial directions (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 27-29: the damper halves are arranged in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 12, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, wherein the first grommet element (102) and the second grommet element (103) are formed identically to each other (Fig. 3, paragraph 29: the construction of damper halves 102, 103 is identical).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christy (), hereinafter referred to as Christy.
Regarding claim 15, Christy teaches a method for feeding a stranded element through an opening, the method comprising:
feeding the stranded element (412) through the opening (404) (Fig. 12 and paragraph 44: wires 412 routed through the openings 404); and
providing a grommet (100) comprising two separate grommet elements (102, 104) in the opening (404) around the stranded element (412) such that a first grommet element (102) is inserted from a first side and a second grommet element (104) is inserted from a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 1-2: grommet bodies 102, 104 are coupled to each other through a panel opening 404).
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(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich et al. in view of Christy (US 20240194378 A1), hereinafter referred to as Christy.
Regarding claim 13, Reich et al. teaches the grommet of claim 1, but does not teach that the grommet is an additive manufacturing part.
Christy teaches that the grommet may be an additive manufacturing part (paragraph 49: first and second grommet bodies may be formed via additive manufacturing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to form the grommet of Reich et al. via additive manufacturing as taught by Christy because additive manufacturing can be used to form a grommet with intricate details that traditional processes cannot achieve (Christy paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 14, Christy teaches a feedthrough arrangement comprising: an opening (404) (Christy Fig. 11 and paragraph 43: opening 404). Christy does not teach the grommet according to claim 1; wherein the first grommet element and the second grommet element are inserted into the opening from opposite directions.
Reich et al. does teach the grommet according to claim 1 (see above); wherein the first grommet element (102) and the second grommet element (103) are inserted into the opening from opposite directions (Reich et al. Fig. 2: the first and second halves 102, 103 of the damper are assembled from opposite directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the grommet of Reich et al. as taught in the rejection of claim 1, above, into the opening of Christy et al. because the grommet of Reich et al. reduces vibrations, thus reducing wear on the opening from vibrations (Reich et al. paragraph 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim that the first collar and/or second collar circumferentially projects beyond a circumferential end of the respective first body and/or second body to circumferentially overlap with another of the first body and/or second body.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim that the tie is arrangeable within the groove of one of the first body and the second body to intersect the collar of another of the first body and the second body along a respective elongated extension of the first body and/or the second body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847