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
This application has Provisional 63/596,672 filed on November 7, 2023.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 currently depends from claim 2, but should depend from claim 8 in order to avoid confusion regarding the “a second bolt” and “a second screw hole”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1, 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 10,622,177) in view of Bulancea (US 2016/0072266).
In regards to claim 1, Roth teaches a box (4, figure 2), comprising: a lower box (8); an upper cover (8a), the other side of the lower box (8b) being provided with multiple snapping parts (40); and a locking mechanism (50) comprising a crossbar (10b) which is slidably arranged on the upper cover (8b)(The slide element is linearly slidably coupled to the cover by means of the pivoting mechanism, column 4, lines 40-42) and provided with multiple hooks (36a-b); when the lower box (8b) is covered with the upper cover (8a) and the crossbar (10b) slides to a designated locking position (closed position), one of the hooks (36a-b) is snap-fitted on one of the snapping parts (40); and when the crossbar(10b) slides to a designated unlocking position, the hook (36a-b) is detached from the snapping part (40).
Roth does not teach one side of the upper cover being rotatably connected with one side of the lower box, or a sealing ring being arranged on the upper cover, the lower box abutting against the sealing ring when the lower box is covered with the upper cover; and the sealing ring is pressed jointly by the upper cover and the lower box.
Bulancea teaches one side of the upper cover (2) being rotatably connected with one side of the lower box (electrical box (1) via (26)( A hinge pivotally couples the flip lid cover to the electrical box or connector, abstract); and a sealing ring (24) being arranged on the upper cover (2), the lower box (26) abutting against the sealing ring (24) when the lower box is covered with the upper cover (see figure 5); and the sealing ring (24) is pressed jointly by the upper cover and the lower box (see figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included the seal ring between the upper cover and the lower cover of Roth as taught by Bulancea to protect electrical devices, such as receptacles, plugs and connectors that are exposed to the harsh elements of weather, such as moisture, rain, snow, and the like (paragraph [0003] of Bulancea). It also would have been obvious to make the upper cover be rotatably connected with one side of the lower box since hinges provide a continuous seal, ensuring that dust, water, and contaminants are blocked from entering the enclosure. This is particularly important for electrical boxes that are exposed to various environmental conditions. They also provide easier and faster access to the interior of the box.
In regards to claim 2, Roth teaches the box according to Claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism (50) further comprises a lever (10a), wherein the lever is rotatably connected to the upper cover (see figure 1) , and one end of the lever is connected to the crossbar (10b); when the lever is rotated under the action of an external force, the crossbar (10b) may be driven by the lever to move between a designated locking position and a designated unlocking position relative to the upper cover (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 10, Roth teaches an outdoor electric appliance, comprising a box (4, figure 2), comprising: a lower box (8); an upper cover (8a), one side of the upper cover (18a) being rotatably connected with one side of the lower box (8b) (a cover that can pivot about a rotational axis, abstract), the other side of the lower box (8b) being provided with multiple snapping parts (latch pins (34)); and a locking mechanism (50) comprising a crossbar (10b) which is slidably arranged on the upper cover (18)(The slide element is linearly slidably coupled to the cover by means of the pivoting mechanism, column 4, lines 40-42) and provided with multiple hooks (32); when the lower box (8b) is covered with the upper cover (8a) and the crossbar (10b) slides to a designated locking position (A locking or unlocking of the securing device occurs with a pivoting of the cover, abstract), one of the hooks is snap-fitted on one of the snapping parts (32,34), and when the crossbar (10b) slides to a designated unlocking position, the hook is detached from the snapping part (32,34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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.
Claim 9 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached USPTO-892 form.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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 Dole can be reached on (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). 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848