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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/19/2026 with respect to claims 22-41 have been considered but are not persuasive. Mori (see below) discloses all the amended limitations in claim 22 below. Therefore, the previous grounds of rejection is maintained.
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 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.
Claim (s) 22-33,35,38, 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (JP 2014212585A; published in 2014; English Translation) hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 22, Mori discloses a grommet (1; Fig.1-5), comprising: a sealing lip (5) running around a longitudinal axis extending in an axial direction (see 5 extending in a lengthwise direction of 1; Fig.2), said sealing lip having a spring section (5) configured such that said sealing lip is compressible (see part 5 which is compressible as shown in Fig.3A-3B) wherein said spring section is spring-shaped and has a plurality of segments ( see 5 made of multiple segments in Fig.3A-3B) connecting to each other thus making said spring section as a whole articulated (see S shaped spring 5 in Fig.3 and Fig.4), wherein said spring section is configured such that said spring section bulges outward when said spring section is in a compressed state. (see 5 bulging outwards as compared to the inside of the grommet as shown in Fig.4).
Regarding claim 23, Mori discloses wherein said spring section realizes a spring function, so that said sealing lip can be compressed at least in the axial direction (see 5 acting as a spring compressible lip in Fig.3A and Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 24, Mori discloses wherein said spring section (spring section part of 5) is configured such, that it allows compression of said sealing lip (5) such that no additional installation space is required on a mounting surface (see P1;Fig.3) when said sealing lip is subjected to a mechanical load, instead, said spring section is compressed (see Fig.3B) and thus absorbs a mechanical load without said sealing lip on the mounting surface being expanded (see Fig.3).
Regarding claim 25, Mori discloses an inner body (4;Fig.3) to which said sealing lip is connected in a radial direction outwardly (see Fig.3A), wherein said sealing lip has an end section (see end point of 5), which is attached to said spring section and which is in direct contact with a mounting surface after mounting (see 5 in contact with P1;Fig.3B), wherein said spring section pivotally connects said inner body to said end section (see 5 connecting to 4).
Regarding claim 26, Mori discloses wherein said sealing lip is configured such that said end section is not expanded during a load and thus does not require more installation space on the mounting surface (see 5 compressed as 4 is, instead, said spring section is arched so that said end section remains in an unchanged position on the mounting surface (see Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 27, Mori discloses wherein said end section is rounded (see tip of 5 rounded) such that it performs a slipping movement in the radial direction (5 slips along surface P1) when mounted on the mounting surface, thereby deforming said spring section and compressing said sealing lip in the axial direction (see Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 28, Mori discloses wherein said spring section is configured such that said sealing lip is widened in the axial direction in an uncompressed state (see Fig.3A) and is bulged outwards in a radial direction in a compressed state. (see Fig.3B)
Regarding claim 29, Mori discloses, wherein said spring section is configured to bulge outwards such that a volume inside the grommet is maintained or increased, wherein the volume is defined as a volume enclosed between the grommet and a mounting surface (see volume maintained between surface of 4 and P1 in Fig.3A and Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 31, Mori discloses wherein said spring section is spring-shaped in that it has several segments which connect to each other and thus make said spring section as a whole articulated (see Fig.3)
Regarding claim 32, Mori discloses wherein: at least two of said segments are connected pivotably to each other at a connection point such that at said connection point a bend facilitate pivoting (see 5 in Fig.3B).
Regarding claim 33, Mori discloses wherein said spring section is meander-shaped when viewed in cross-section along the longitudinal axis (see Fig.3 where 5 is following a meander shape).
Regarding claim 35, Mori discloses wherein said mass section is drop-shaped in cross-section (see 2,4,6 forming a drop shape; Fig.2) along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 38, Mori discloses, wherein the grommet is configured to be mounted in a wall (see grommet mountable within a wall P;Fig.4) and has at least one socket or spout (see 2;Fig.2) for passing a cable, line or conduit through the wall.
Regarding claim 40, Mori discloses wherein said sealing lip is rotationally symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis (see 5 in Fig.1).
Regarding claim 41, Mori discloses comprising an insert (6) for fastening in on a wall (see 6 inserted through hole of wall P; Fig.4) such that said spring section remains compressed after assembly and is thus pretensioned (see Fig.4).
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 30 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori.
Regarding claim 30, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for said sealing lip runs at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis, said angle being in a range from 2⁰ to 30⁰ in an uncompressed state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use said sealing lip runs at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis, said angle being in a range from 2⁰ to 30⁰ in an uncompressed state in order to assist the lip slide along the surface of the wall more easier, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 36, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said mass section has a thickness in a range of 4 mm to 5 mm It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein said mass section has a thickness in a range of 4 mm to 5 mm in order to provide protection for the cable going through, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 37, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said spring section has a thickness in a range of 1.5 mm to 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein said spring section has a thickness in a range of 1.5 mm to 3 mm in order to provide protection for the cable going through, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim (s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of N.P.L. (JPH 0927226A; published in 1997).
Regarding claim 34, Mori is silent with respect to wherein said sealing lip has an end section, which is configured as a mass section and which, measured in a radial direction, is thicker than said spring section
N.P. L. discloses wherein said sealing lip (11 and 12; Fig.2) has an end section (12; Fig.2), which is configured as a mass section (12) and which, measured in a radial direction, is thicker than said spring section (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of N.P.L. to modify the lip of Mori in order to assist in gripping the surface of the wall.
Claim (s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morias applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Svette Jr. et al. (US 2009/0108146 A1) hereinafter Svette.
Regarding claim 39, Mori is silent with respect to where said sealing lip is made of ethylene-propylenediene rubber (EPDM).
Svette discloses a grommet made of EPDM (see [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Svette to modify the grommet of Mori in order to provide a material that is resistant against chemicals and also repels water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 42, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein said insert has fastening elements; and said sealing lip has a plurality of bulges, to accommodate a corresponding number of said fastening elements of said insert " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 22 and 41.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (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).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848