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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated September 9, 2025 was submitted on December 4, 2025. Claims 11 and 20 were amended. Claim 18 was canceled. Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to claim 20 have overcome the objection to this claim (¶ 4 of the Office Action). This claim objection has therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 11-17, 19 and 20 (¶¶ 8-19 of the Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and these rejections have been maintained as detailed below. Since the limitations of claim 18 have been incorporated into claim 11, claim 11 has been rejected on the grounds set forth in the previous Office Action for canceled claim 18.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2004-122616 A, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below) in view of Noordyk (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0266817 A1, cited in previous Office Action) and Vendan et al. (“Confluence of Multidisciplinary Sciences for Polymer Joining”, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, 2019, pp. 17-22, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 11, Miyaji discloses a method of assembling a body formed in two halves comprising a first half and a second half (Abstract, FIGS, 2-3 of Miyaji), wherein each of the first half and the second half have an edge wall on opposite spaced apart end walls (FIG. 3 of Miyaji), each edge wall having a sacrificial pad extending outwardly therefrom (FIG. 3 of Miyaji, welding projections W1y and W2y) comprising the steps of: loading the first half onto a first fixture and the second half onto a second fixture in a press (FIG. 5 of Miyaji, holders #7 #9) and moving a hot plate between the first half and the second half to heat the sacrificial pads to a predetermined temperature (FIG. 5 of Miyaji, hot plate device #1; [0045] of Miyaji, hot plate device #1 placed between upper and lower holder fixing plates #6 #8); withdrawing the hot plate from between the first half and the second half ([0048] of Miyaji, hot plate device #1 taken out from between the joints of the half pieces); and moving the top fixture and the bottom fixture towards one another to force the pads together under a predetermined pressure for a predetermined period of time to weld the halves together and form a seam therebetween (FIGS. 5-6, [0048] of Miyaji, joints of the half pieces pressed together by moving upper and lower holder fixing plates #6 #8 towards one another).
Miyaji does not specifically disclose that the body is a grade level vault. Noordyk, however, discloses an underground utility enclosure (i.e., a vault) for installation at grade level (FIG. 2 of Noordyk). According to Noordyk, the box comprises two sections or halves made from a polymer material ([0056] of Noordyk) which are joined together at opposing attachment flanges (FIG. 3, [0040] of Noordyk). Also according to Noordyk, the box can be secured using welding ([0040] of Noordyk). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the cavity wall sections of the enclosure of Noordyk as the two halves in the method of Miyaji. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a welded underground utility enclosure as taught by Noordyk ([0040] of Noordyk) having a specified joining strength as taught by Miyaji (Abstract of Miyaji, method ensures that a specified joining strength is obtained).
Miyaji does not specifically disclose that the pressure applied to the sacrificial pads is based upon a matching force between 0.2 N/mm2 to 0.5 N/mm2. Miyaji, however, discloses heating the welding projections to a predetermined temperature by heating the hot plate block to a required temperature and maintaining a close state for a predetermined time ([0036], [0045] of Miyaji). Vendan discloses that the welding pressure (i.e., the matching force) is a significant process parameter for hot tool welding to achieve an optimal joint strength (pg. 22, 1st full ¶ of Vendan). Vendan therefore establishes that matching force is a variable which achieve a recognized result (i.e., achieving a desired joint strength) (pg. 22, 1st full ¶ of Vendan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the matching force in the modified method, including providing a matching force between 0.2 N/mm2 to 0.5 N/mm2. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claim 12, Miyaji discloses that the end walls of the first half and the second half have channels for receipt of welded material from the sacrificial pad (FIGS. 3 and 4 of Miyaji, channels formed on sides of protrusion at joint interface of both halves).
Regarding claims 17, 19 and 20, Miyaji does not specifically disclose that the sacrificial pad is heated to 240 °C as recited in claim 17, that the first half and the second half is welded together under a matching time of 14 seconds, a heating time of 13 seconds, and a fusion time of 14 seconds as recited in claim 19 or that the first half and the second half are welded together under a matching distance of approximately 2.5 mm as recited in claim 20. Miyaji, however, discloses heating the welding projections to a predetermined temperature by heating the hot plate block to a required temperature and maintaining a close state for a predetermined time ([0036], [0045] of Miyaji). Vendan discloses that the hot plate temperature (i.e., the temperature to which the joint interface is heated), the heat soak time (i.e., the heating time), the welding pressure (i.e., the matching force), the welding time (i.e., matching time), the cooling time (i.e., fusion time) and the joining displacement (i.e., matching distance) are significant process parameters for hot tool welding to achieve an optimal joint strength (pg. 22, 1st full ¶ of Vendan). Vendan therefore establishes that these process variables are variables which achieve a recognized result (i.e., achieving a desired joint strength) (pg. 22, 1st full ¶ of Vendan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize these variables in the modified method, including providing values for these variables as recited in claims 17, 19 and 20. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Noordyk and Vendan as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Burke (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0117018 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 13, neither Miyaji nor Noordyk specifically disclose positioning at least one rack on a side wall within the interior region. Burke, however, discloses a grade level utility enclosure (Abstract of Burke) comprising racks #60 affixed to the sidewall of the enclosure for use in attaching equipment used in the interior of the enclosure (FIG. 3, [0031] of Burke). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position at least one rack on a side wall within an interior region of the enclosure. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for attaching equipment used in the interior of the enclosure as taught by Burke (FIG. 3, [0031] of Burke).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Noordyk, Vendan and Burke as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Obeda (U.S. Patent No. 3,499,808, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 14, neither Burke does not specifically disclose forming posts extending inwardly from an inside surface of the side wall of the enclosure for receipt of the rack. Moreover, Burke discloses affixing the top and bottom of the rack which is made of metal to the sidewall of the enclosure using suitable fasteners ([0031] of Burke) but does not disclose forming posts extending inwardly from the sidewall for receipt of the rack. Obeda discloses a method for securing a thermoplastic part to a metal part (Abstract, 3:2-4 of Obeda) wherein upstanding projections or posts #17 on the thermoplastic part #16 engage openings or apertures in the metal part #18 (FIG. 2 of Obeda). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form posts extending inwardly from an inside surface of the side wall of the enclosure for receipt of the rack since Obeda establishes that such methods of attachment were known for attaching metal to plastic objects. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Obeda discloses upsetting an end of the posts to lock the rack in place on the side wall (Abstract, FIG. 5 of Obeda, end of projection deformed to fasten parts together).
Regarding claim 16, Obeda discloses that upsetting an end of the post is by sonic welding (Abstract of Obeda, sonic energy applied to projection of thermoplastic part to cause deformation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Vendan is a book on polymer joining and discusses nothing about utilities vaults or the specific pressure necessary to achieve the method claimed. Vendan, however, is directed to hot tool welding of polymers which is the method used to assemble to two vault halves in claim 11. With regard to the specific values of pressure recited in the claim, Vendan establishes that matching force (i.e., welding pressure) is a variable which achieve a recognized result (i.e., achieving a desired joint strength) (pg. 22, 1st full ¶ of Vendan). It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the matching force in the modified method, including providing a matching force between 0.2 N/mm2 to 0.5 N/mm2 as recited in claim 11. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Troughton (“Handbook of Plastics Joining: A Practical Guide”, Chapter 1 – “Heated Tool Welding”, pp. 3-13, 2009) discloses using pressures of 0.1-0.5 MPa to weld plastics in a heated tool welding process (pg. 10, left column, 3rd full ¶).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746