DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-15 as filed on 05/31/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Specification
10. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has submitted three (3) separate specification documents dated (05/31/2024, 05/31/2024, 07/01/2024, respectively) the latter two of three documents indicating changes to the specifications. However, a supplemental specification incorporating all said changes has not been uploaded for review as of this office action date. Furthermore, examiner believes this is an error and an additional supplemental specification document is intended to be uploaded for review. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: see below. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 1,
“of which first seal” in line 9 is incorrectly used, it appears of which first seal is intended to recite “of the first seal”.
“in each case” in line 9 is incorrectly used, it appear in each case is not intended to be recited.
“of which first seal” in line 10 is incorrectly used, it appears of which first seal is intended to recite “of the first seal”.
“extended in the a” in line 11 is incorrectly used, it appears in the a is intended to recite “extended in the”.
“of which second seal” in line 13 is incorrectly used, it appears of which first seal is intended to recite “of the second seal”.
“of which second seal” in line 14 is incorrectly used, it appears of which first seal is intended to recite “of the second seal”.
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.
11. Claims 1-15 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.
In regards to Claim 7, “the fifth seal and/or sixth seal” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis. The fifth and sixth seal is not disclosed in claim 1 as claim 7 is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 6 introduces the fifth and sixth seal. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted claim 7 as dependent on claim 6 in lieu of claim 1.
In regards to Claim 7, “the sealing elements” in line 4 lacks antecedent basis due to not being previously introduced in claim 1.
In regards to Claim 8, “ “the fifth seal and/or sixth seal” in line 3-4 lacks antecedent basis. The fifth and sixth seal is not disclosed in claim 1 as claim 8 is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 6 introduces the fifth and sixth seal. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted claim 8 as dependent on claim 6 in lieu of claim 1.
In regards to Claim 11, “ “the fifth seal and/or sixth seal” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis. The fifth and sixth seal is not disclosed in claim 1 as claim 11 is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 6 introduces the fifth and sixth seal. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted claim 11 as dependent on claim 6 in lieu of claim 1.
In regards to Claim 12, “ “the fifth seal and/or sixth seal” in lines 3-4 lacks antecedent basis. The fifth and sixth seal is not disclosed in claim 1 as claim 12 is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 6 introduces the fifth and sixth seal. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted claim 12 as dependent on claim 6 in lieu of claim 1.
In regards to Claim 15, “ “the fifth seal and/or sixth seal” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. The fifth and sixth seal is not disclosed in claim 1 as claim 15 is dependent on claim 12, which is further dependent on claim 1. However, claim 6 introduces the fifth and sixth seal. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted claim 15 as dependent on claim 12 and further dependent on claim 6 in lieu of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3, 10-12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being clearly anticipated by Lopes et al. (US 10363444 B2) (Herein Lopes).
In regards to Claim 1, Lopes discloses a device (10) for routing lines, pipes, and/or cables [Abstract] through a building part [Col 3, Lines 13-17], comprising: a housing (12) [Fig 2] with a housing wall (16,18,20,22), the housing (12) [Fig 2] having an axial passage channel (14) which is delimited by the housing wall (16,18,20,22) [Col 3, Lines 23-25], wherein the axial passage channel (14) in the a longitudinal direction [Fig 2] , and has an opening (56,58) at opposite ends [Fig 2] , the housing (12) [Fig 2] having a first wall (18) and a second wall (22) opposite the first wall [Fig 2, Opposite Sections] ,a first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] having a curved shape [Fig 3] (element 46 curved) being arranged in the a housing interior [Col 3, Lines 23-25], the end regions (42,44) [Fig 2] of which first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] in each case being operatively connected [Fig 2] to the first wall (18) and the a central region (46) of which first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] extending in the a direction [Curved to Second Wall] of the second wall (22), and a second seal (26) having a curved shape [Fig 3] (element 46 curved) being arranged in the housing interior [Col 3, Lines 23-25], the end regions (42,44) of which second seal (26) being operatively connected [Fig 2] to the second wall (22) and the central region (46) of which second seal (26) extending in the a direction [Curve extending towards first wall] of the first wall (18), and wherein the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second seal (26) having a common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments) in the longitudinal direction [Fig 2] of the device (10) , wherein the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second seal (26) cooperate with one another [Fig 2] by the central regions (46), a third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] being assigned to the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] in the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments) and a fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] being assigned to the second seal (26) in the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments), and the third (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] cooperating [Fig 2, Showing seal elements cooperating] with one another.
In regards to Claim 2, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and/or to the second seal (26), respectively.
In regards to Claim 3, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 2, wherein the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and/or to the second seal (26), respectively, by an adhesive connection or by a welded connection [Col 3, Lines 62-65, Ability to connect to a secondary element by claimed methods].
In regards to Claim 10, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1 wherein the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second seal (26) are designed as a foam element [Col. 4, Lines 26-30]
In regards to Claim 13, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, further comprising a sealing arrangement (34) [Col 6, Lines 29-40] [Fig 2] in the region of the openings (56,58) of the device (10) .
In regards to Claim 14, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, further comprising at least one intumescent element (24,26) [Col. 4, Lines 41-45]
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.
14. Claim 6, 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes et al. (US 10363444 B2) (Herein Lopes).
In regards to Claim 6, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, a fifth seal (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40], the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28], the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments), a sixth seal (34), the second seal (26), and the fifth seal (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] and the sixth seal (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] cooperating [Col 6, Lines 35-40] with one another [Fig 2, Showing seal elements cooperating]. However, fails to disclose wherein a fifth seal is assigned to the first seal in the common extension region and a sixth seal is assigned to the second seal in the common extension region. owever, fails to
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fifth and sixth seal to attach to the first and second seal keep out dust and particulates from entering into the access corridor [See Lopes; Col 6. Lines 40-41]. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
In regards to Claim 7, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58]. However, fails to disclose wherein the third seal and/or the fourth seal has at least two sealing elements.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third and/or fourth seal to include sealing elements (34 as disclosed by Lopes, 38 being attached as bristles) at the ends of each of the third and fourth seal. When modified the third and fourth seals would integrate two sealing elements which includes bristles, since bristles are not rigid, they allow the external surface of the penetrating cable to extend through the sleeve without creating any abrasion or scraping there against [see Lopes; Col. 43-46]. Additionally, it would’ve been obvious that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In regards to Claim 8, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, however fails to disclose wherein the third seal and/or the fourth seal and/or the fifth seal and/or the sixth seal each have inverted sealing elements , the two end regions of the sealing elements being flush with one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third and/or fourth seal to include sealing elements (34 as disclosed by Lopes) at the ends of each of the third and fourth seal as an inverted mechanism and also modifying the two end regions of the sealing elements being flush with one another. When modified the third and fourth seals would integrate two sealing elements which includes bristles, since bristles are not rigid, they allow the external surface of the penetrating cable to extend through the sleeve without creating any abrasion or scraping there against [see Lopes; Col. 43-46]. Additionally, it would’ve been obvious that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In regards to Claim 9, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] each have inverted sealing elements (28) [Col 7, Lines 20-24] , the two end regions [Each seal (50) ends] of the sealing elements (28) [Col 7, Lines 20-24]. However, fails to disclose the two end regions of the sealing elements being offset with respect to one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify of end regions of the sealing elements to be offset from each other in order to better prevent leakage of gas or other elements. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
In regards to Claim 11, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the fifth seal (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] and/or the sixth seal (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] have lamellae, brushes, bristles (38), strips, bands, or tubes.
In regards to Claim 12, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] comprise plastics material [See Lopes; Col 4, Lines 54-56, Foam is known as a type of plastic in the art] and/or biological material.
In regards to Claim 15, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 12, the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58]. However, fails to disclose wherein the third seal and/or the fourth seal and/or the fifth seal and/or the sixth seal comprise polyamide, nylon, polyester, or rubber as the plastics material, and/or horse hair as the biological material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seals of Lopes to be made of plastic material comprising polyamide, nylon, polyester, or rubber in order further facilitate a high durable attachment since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
15. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes et al. (US 10363444 B2) (Herein Lopes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stahl, SR (US 20070125018 A1) (Herein Stahl).
In regards to Claim 4, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first wall (18) and/or to the second wall (22), respectively. However, fails to disclose wherein the third seal and/or the fourth seal is connected to the first wall and/or to the second wall, respectively, by a holder.
Furthermore, Stahl discloses wherein the third seal (50, Lopes) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth seal (50, Lopes) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first wall (18, Lopes) and/or to the second wall (22, Lopes), respectively, by a holder (32).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lopes to include the third seal and/or the fourth seal is connected to the first wall and/or to the second wall, respectively, by a holder as disclosed by Stalh. When modified, the holder would further attach the third and/or fourth seal to the first and/or second wall facilitating attachment between the third and fourth seal to the inner member allowing the central portion of the third and fourth seals to expand inwardly as when sensing heat to seal against the penetrating members between the third and fourth seal. [See Stalh; Paragraph 0025, latter half]
In regards to Claim 5, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 4, the first seal (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and second seal (26), the first wall (18) and second wall (22). However, fails to disclose wherein the holder is configured to secure an end region of the first seal and second seal to the first wall and second wall, respectively.
Furthermore, Stahl discloses wherein the holder (32) is configured to secure [0026] an end region (34,36, 38,40) of the first seal (24, Lopes) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and second seal (26, Lopes) to the first wall (18, Lopes) and second wall (22, Lopes), respectively.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lopes to include a holder configured to secure an end region of the first seal and second seal to the first wall and second wall, respectively as disclosed by Stahl. When modified, the holder is used to secure the exterior ends to the first and second wall facilitating attachment to the inner member allowing the central portion of the third and fourth seals to expand inwardly as when sensing heat to seal against the penetrating members between the third and fourth seal. [See Stalh; Paragraph 0025, latter half]
PNG
media_image1.png
339
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners Comments
Lopes, Figure 2
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635