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 04/14/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Specification
3. 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,
“in each case” in line 8 is incorrectly used, it appear in each case is not intended to be recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-15 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 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 sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] having a curved surface [Col 3, Lines 44-46 “convex surface”] [Fig 3] being arranged in the a housing interior [Col 3, Lines 23-25], the end regions (42,44) [Fig 2] of first sealing element (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 the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] extending in the direction [Curved to Second Wall] of the second wall (22), and
a second sealing element (26) having a curved surface (48) [Fig 3] [Col 3, Lines 44-46 “convex surface”] being arranged in the housing interior [Col 3, Lines 23-25], end regions (42,44) of second sealing element (26) being operatively connected [Fig 2] to the second wall (22) and the central region (46) of the second sealing element (26) extending in the direction [Curve extending towards first wall] of the first wall (18),
wherein the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second sealing element (26) cooperate with one another [Fig 2] by the central regions (46), a third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] being assigned to the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] in the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments) and a fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] being assigned to the second sealing element (26) in the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments), and the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and the fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] cooperating [Fig 2, Showing seal elements cooperating] with one another and form a sealing surface [Col 3, Lines 51-56].
However, Lopes fails to disclose
wherein the first sealing element and the second sealing element having a common extension region in the longitudinal direction of the device and a contact portion between said curved surfaces.
Furthermore, Stahl discloses
wherein the first sealing element (24, Lopes) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second sealing element (26, Lopes) having a common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3, Lopes] (see examiners comments) in the longitudinal direction [Fig 2, Lopes] of the device (10, Lopes) and a contact portion [0026, “freeing the central, flexible portions 42, 44 of the intumescent pads 22, 24 to expand inwardly upon sensing of heat from a fire to seal against the penetrating members passing through the confinement area 26”] between said curved surfaces (48, Lopes) [Fig 3] [Col 3, Lines 44-46 “convex surface”].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, 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 by Lopes to further include wherein the first sealing element and the second sealing element having a common extension region in the longitudinal direction of the device and a contact portion between said curved surfaces as disclosed by Ref Stahl. When modified, the contact portion between said curved surfaces allows for sealing against the penetrating members passing through the confinement area upon sensing heat from a fire [see Stahl, paragraph 0026]
In regards to Claim 2, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and/or to the second sealing element (26), respectively.
In regards to Claim 3, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 2, wherein the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] is connected to the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and/or to the second sealing element (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 4, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (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 sealing element and/or the fourth sealing element is connected to the first wall and/or to the second wall, respectively, by a holder.
Furthermore, Stahl discloses wherein the third sealing element (50, Lopes) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (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 sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and second sealing element (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 sealing element and second sealing element 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 sealing element (24, Lopes) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and second sealing element (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 sealing element and second sealing element 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]
In regards to Claim 6, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1, a fifth sealing element (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40], the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28], the common extension region [Unnumbered, Figs 2-3] (see examiners comments), a sixth sealing element (34), the second sealing element (26), and the fifth sealing element (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] and the sixth sealing element (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 sealing element is assigned to the first sealing element in the common extension region and a sixth sealing element is assigned to the second sealing element 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 6, the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58]. However, fails to disclose wherein the third sealing element and/or the fourth sealing element 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 sealing element to include sealing elements (34 as disclosed by Lopes, 38 being attached as bristles) at the ends of each of the third and fourth sealing element. When modified the third and fourth sealing element 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 6, however fails to disclose wherein the third sealing element and/or the fourth sealing element and/or the fifth sealing element and/or the sixth sealing element 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 sealing element 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 6, wherein the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (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 10, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 1 wherein the first sealing element (24) [Col 3, Lines 26-28] and the second sealing element (26) are designed as a foam element [Col. 4, Lines 26-30]
In regards to Claim 11, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 6, wherein the fifth sealing element (34) [Col 6, Lines 35-40] and/or the sixth sealing element (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 sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and/or the fourth sealing element (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 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]
In regards to Claim 15, Lopes discloses the device (10) according to claim 12, the third sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58] and the fourth sealing element (50) [Col 4, Lines 54-58]. However, fails to disclose wherein the third sealing element and/or the fourth sealing element and/or the fifth sealing element and/or the sixth sealing element 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners Comments
Lopes, Figure 2
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claim objections is partially persuasive and objection to majority of the claims is hereby withdrawn. Please see Claim Objections section.
Objection to the Specifications: Applicant makes no argument with respect to the specifications, objection to the specifications has been maintained.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant iterates the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest a device comprising first and second sealing elements having curved surfaces having a common extension region and a contact portion therebetween and third and fourth sealing elements respectively disposed and cooperating to form a sealing surface.
Furthermore, Applicant iterates Lopes et al. discloses a single seal whereby the projecting blocks enhance the formation of a single seal. Whereas in contrast the claimed invention is directed to a device having a common extension region and a contact portion there between the third and fourth elements disposed and cooperating to form a sealing surface.
In regards to applicants’ arguments, examiner response as is, the applicant’s arguments have been considered however arguments regarding a contact portion therebetween is not relied upon for the limitation of a contact portion therebetween. Stahl, SR (US 20070125018 A1) as outline above is relied upon. The additional amended limitation of “a contact portion between said curved surfaces” has necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Additionally, Applicant argues Lopes et al. discloses a single seal, however in Lopes et al. discloses elements (24, 26) which are fire stopping pads (also known as sealing elements to one of ordinary skill in the art) and (50) which combine to create an additional seal (52). Lopes additionally discloses a third seal (34) which in combination as shown in Fig 2 and [Col 6, Lines 34-36] seal against dust or particles for penetrating members such as cables or wires. [See Lopes, Col 6, Lines 40-46]
For the reasons disclosed in the above, Lopes et al has been maintained for this rejection.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to Claims 4-5, Applicant discloses Stahl SR as cited disclosing third and fourth seals connected to the first wall and/or second wall by a holder. Applicant further Iterates Stahl SR can not cure the fatal deficiency of Lopes et al. in disclosing a device which forms a single seal.
For the reasons listed above in the 102-response section, both Lopes et al. and Stahl, SR have been maintained for this rejection.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. 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
Prosecution Insights