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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al. (US 20170346440 hereinafter Lester) in view of Gretz (US 5804764 hereinafter Gretz and further in view of L. E. PALMER ET AL (US 2959633 hereinafter Palmer).
In regards to claim 1, Lester discloses;” A junction box (Abstract) comprising: a housing comprising sidewalls and a bottom attached to the sidewalls (Paragraph 0001 defines a box shown in Fig’s 1 and 2), an exterior side of the bottom is configured to be mounted to a roof of a structure (Fig’s 1 and 2 (shown)); a flashing attached to the housing and extending horizontally from the housing, the flashing formed with the housing (Paragraph 0006 where the flashing is integrated with the junction box),
but does not directly disclose “and a plurality of fastener openings in the bottom, each fastener opening configured for a fastener positionable within the fastener opening, wherein securing a fastener through a fastener opening of the plurality of fastener openings contributes to securing the housing to the roof,
However Gretz discloses weather tight junction structure with a flange having internal mounting holes (Fig. 8 (50), Col. 4, Lines 33-47), where the junction box is capable of being mounted to a structure using the internal mounting holes. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use the internal mounting holes to provide one location for the mounting of the structure and to minimize the disturbance of adjacent roofing shingles. Therefore using the internal mounting holes as disclosed by Gretz with the structure of Lester, the portion of mounting holes is disclosed.
or further does not directly disclose
“;wherein each of the plurality of fastener openings in the bottom comprises a boss, each boss extending away from a bottom interior surface of the bottom, each boss configured to surround a portion of a fastener above a bottom plane at the bottom interior surface when the fastener is positioned in the fastener opening of the boss.
However, Palmer discloses a weather tight junction structure that uses internal mounting locations with holes on the bottom of the structure as shown in figure 1 (23, 24). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use a mounting structure to ensure minimal moisture ingress and also to ensure the mounting screws or other fixings are less likely to be pulled thru the bottom of the structure. The use of the “boss” or raised structure helps to ensure that the mounting fixtures are held solidly within the junction box. Therefore using the “boss” as disclosed by Palmer with the internal fastener openings disclosed by Gretz in the disclosure of Lester, The full claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 2, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 1, wherein each fastener positionable within a fastener opening comprises a head and a shaft below the head and wherein each boss comprises a thickened portion configured to surround the shaft of the fastener below the head of the fastener, the thickened portion extending into an interior of the housing an amount above the bottom plane (Palmer Fig’ s. 1 and 8 (23, 24 where the head and shaft portion are thick).
In regards to claim 3, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 2, wherein the boss comprises sidewalls surrounding the head of the fastener when the fastener is positioned in the fastener opening and the head of the boss is adjacent to the thickened portion. (Fig. 8 (shows a chamfered opening for a screw.))
In regards to claim 4, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 3, wherein the sidewalls extend above a top of the head of the fastener (The counter sunk opening of (Fig. 8 (24)) is capable of being deeper that the head of the fastener screw and therefore the claimed invention is disclosed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al. (US 20170346440 hereinafter Lester) in view of Gretz (US 5804764 hereinafter Gretz and further in view of L. E. PALMER ET AL (US 2959633 hereinafter Palmer) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wentworth (US 20170110863 hereinafter Wentworth).
In regards to claim 5, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” further comprising a lid configured to attach to a top of the housing along top edges of the sidewalls of the housing, the top opposite the bottom, wherein the lid comprises an outer lip configured to overlap and extend past the top edges of the sidewalls of the housing.”
However, Lester does show a cover over the junction structure, but is silent on the formation of the cover. Wentworth discloses a roof mounted junction box with a lid that overlaps and extends beyond the topmost portion of the box. It would have been obvious to one skilled it the art to produce a cover that prevents the ingress of water or moisture into the box. The protection of electrical connections is required to insure reliable electrical performance, so using a cover structure the reduces the ingress of moisture into an externally mounted device. Therefore using a cover or lid as disclosed by Wentworth with the modified disclosure of Lester, the claimed invention is disclosed.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al. (US 20170346440 hereinafter Lester) in view of Gretz (US 5804764 hereinafter Gretz and further in view of L. E. PALMER ET AL (US 2959633 hereinafter Palmer) and further in view of Mayfield et al. (US 10284136 hereinafter Mayfield).
In regards to claim 15, Lester discloses;” A junction box (Abstract comprising: a housing comprising sidewalls and a bottom attached to the sidewalls (Paragraph 0001 defines a box shown in Fig’s 1 and 2), an exterior side of the bottom is configured to be mounted to a roof of a structure (Fig’s 1 and 2 (shown))”,
but does not directly disclose;
” a sealant guide and/or a sealant disposed on the exterior side of the bottom, the sealant guide and/or the sealant surrounding an exterior central area of the exterior side of the bottom, the sealant surrounding at least an upper portion and side portions of the exterior central area, wherein the upper portion is oriented toward an upper side of the bottom with respect to a slope of the roof”
However Mayfield discloses a flange structure used for waterproofing mounting of solar structures to a roof (Fig. 2 (18), Col. 4,Lines 28-38). As shown in Fig. 2, the orientation of the flashing to the roof sloop. The placement location of the sealant would depend on the locations of the area requiring the addition protection i.e. holes in the bottom of a structure a would be a design choice. A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate as many waterproofing methods as possible to attach a structure to a roof to minimalize water or moisture ingress into the interior of the structure the junction box is attached to. When mounting anything on a roof, there is a direct need to ensure that no water damage to the internal portions of the roof can occur. Therefor using the flange as disclosed by Mayfield with the flashing disclosed by a modified Lester, this portion of the claim is disclosed.
or does not directly disclose;
a plurality of fastener openings in the bottom, each fastener opening configured for a fastener positionable within the fastener opening, wherein securing a fastener through a fastener opening of the plurality of fastener openings contributes to securing the housing to the roof,
However Gretz discloses weather tight junction structure with a flange having internal mounting holes (Fig. 8 (50), Col. 4, Lines 33-47), where the junction box is capable of being mounted to a structure using the internal mounting holes. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use the internal mounting holes to provide one location for the mounting of the structure and to minimize the disturbance of adjacent roofing shingles. Therefore using the mounting holes as disclosed by Gretz with the structure of Lester, the portion of mounting holes is disclosed.
or does not directly disclose;
wherein each of the plurality of fastener openings in the bottom comprises a boss, each boss extending away from a bottom interior surface of the bottom, each boss configured to surround a portion of a fastener above a bottom plane at the bottom interior surface when the fastener is positioned in the fastener opening of the boss.
However, Palmer discloses a weather tight junction structure that uses internal mounting locations with holes on the bottom of the structure as shown in figure 1 (23, 24). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use a mounting structure to ensure minimal moisture ingress and also to ensure the mounting screws or other fixings are less likely to be pulled thru the bottom of the structure. The use of the “boss” or raised structure helps to ensure that the mounting fixtures are held solidly within the junction box. Therefore using the “boss” as disclosed by Palmer with the internal fastener openings disclosed by Gretz in the disclosure of a modified Lester and further modified by Mayfield, The full claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 16, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 1, wherein each fastener positionable within a fastener opening comprises a head and a shaft below the head and wherein each boss comprises a thickened portion configured to surround the shaft of the fastener below the head of the fastener, the thickened portion extending into an interior of the housing an amount above the bottom plane (Palmer Fig’ s. 1 and 8 (23, 24 where the head and shaft portion are thick)).
In regards to claim 17, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 16, wherein the boss comprises sidewalls surrounding the head of the fastener when the fastener is positioned in the fastener opening and the head of the boss is adjacent to the thickened portion.
In regards to claim 18, a modified Lester discloses;” The junction box of claim 17, wherein the sidewalls extend above a top of the head of the fastener. (The counter sunk opening of (Fig. 8 (24)) is capable of being deeper that the head of the fastener screw and therefore the claimed invention is disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, and 19-20 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.
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the independent claim, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in independent claim 8 with the allowable feature being:” A junction box comprising: a housing configured to be mounted to a roof of a structure; a drill zone marking on a bottom interior surface of the bottom along a perimeter of an interior central area of the bottom interior surface and/or within the interior central area; and a plurality of fastener openings in the bottom, each fastener opening configured for a fastener positionable within the fastener opening, wherein securing a fastener through a fastener opening of the plurality of fastener openings contributes to securing the housing to the roof; wherein each of the plurality of fastener openings in the bottom comprises a boss, each boss extending away from the bottom interior surface, each boss configured to surround a portion of a fastener above a bottom plane at the bottom interior surface when the fastener is positioned in the fastener opening of the boss.”
Therefore, claim 8 is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F MCALLISTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM.
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 Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/MICHAEL F MCALLISTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights