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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 based on the following remarks:
According to MPEP 2173.05(p), which recites in part the following: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Regarding Claim 1 in line 8 recites an action step of “bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure” for the bending inward of the clips in method step shown in Figs 4A and 4B, as explained in [0054] in specification of instant application in lines 3-6 lines, as reproduced herein below:
PNG
media_image1.png
582
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed limitation in line 8 of claim 1 belongs to a method of using the cable assembly specifically to be mounted to a wall 406 through an opening 416 thereof as shown by Figs 4A and 4B.
Furthermore, referring to [0054] in last 4 lines of instant application which recites, as reproduced herein below:
PNG
media_image2.png
582
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed limitation in last 2 lines of claim 1: ““and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the panel or enclosure” imply of belonging to a method step at completion of the insertion of the clips 410, as shown in Figs 4D and 4E. Thus, the claimed limitation in last 2 lines of claim 1 also belongs to a method of using the cable assembly specifically to mount to a wall 406 through an opening 416 thereof as shown by Figs 4D and 4E.
An important distinction is that the “a panel or an enclosure” as mentioned in lines 4-5 in claim 1 does not belong as components/elements for the claimed subject matter of cable assembly, but belong to external workpieces of panel or wall 406 as shown in figures.
Thus, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the limitations in lines 6-9 was found to be indefinite because it was unclear whether infringement occurs when one fabricates a cable assembly, or whether infringement occurs only when the cable assembly is mounted to a panel or wall.
Regarding claim 8 of instant application in line 9 recites an action step of “bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure” for the bending inward of the clips in method step shown in Figs 4A and 4B, as explained in lines 3-6 of [0054] in specification of instant application. Thus, the claimed limitation in line 8 of claim 8 belongs to a method of using the cable assembly specifically to be mounted to a wall 406 through an opening 416 thereof as shown by Figs 4A and 4B. Furthermore, referring to [0054] in last 4 lines and the claimed limitation in last 2 lines of claim 8: “and revert to a locking position” implying of belonging to a method step of using the cable assembly at completion of the insertion of the clips 410, as shown in Figs 4D and 4E. Thus, the claimed limitation in last 2 lines of claim 8 also belongs to a method of using the cable assembly specifically to mount to a wall 406 through an opening 416 thereof as shown by Figs 4D and 4E.
An important distinction is that the “installation in a panel or an enclosure” as recited in line 4 in claim 8 does not belong within the claimed subject matter and scope of method providing a cable assembly, but instead, belong to method using the cable assembly for installation to external workpiece of panel or wall 406 as shown in figures.
Thus, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the limitations in last 3 lines was found to be indefinite because it was unclear whether infringement occurs when a method is providing a cable assembly (without the cable assembly being used for mounting through opening to wall panel), or whether infringement occurs only when a method is using a cable assembly mounting to external workpiece outside the claimed scope of cable assembly, i.e. a panel wall or enclosure. Note the method for providing the cable assembly does not include another method for providing the panel or enclosure, nor a method for installing the cable assembly to the panel or enclosure.
Claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 based on the following remarks:
Referring to claim 1 in last 3 lines, which recites “a plurality of clips coupled to the seal gland and configured to: bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure; and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the panel or enclosure”. However, based on the presence of alternative language of “or” used in two instances taken from above limitation from claim, one possible alternative interpretation of claim which reads: “configured to: bend inwards during insertion into the panel; and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the enclosure” would not make sense or be possible. Likewise, another possible alternative interpretation of claim which reads: “configured to: bend inwards during insertion into the enclosure; and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the panel” also would not make sense or be possible. As a result, under the existing language using “or” in two instances in above limitation taken from claim 1, claim 1 appear to be indefinite.
By virtue of dependency upon base claim 1, likewise, dependent claims 5-7 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
By virtue of dependency upon base claim 8, likewise, dependent claims 12-14 and 16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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, 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, 5-8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmich (US 20210282287A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cmich”) in view of Jorgensen (US 7211744B2, hereinafter referred to as “Jorgensen”).
Regarding claim 1, Cmich discloses a cable assembly (Figs 1 and 12, entry sealing system 100 with cable entry 20 and cable 22 in cable jacket 23) comprising: at least one cable (Figs 1and 5, cable 22) having insulation (Figs 1, 2 and 5, cable jacket 23); and a seal gland ([0035] lines 1-13: cable jacket 23 is fused to the cable grommet 24, using plastic over-mold process, or plastic injection molding where cable grommet 24 is molded over the cable jacket 23 to provide a seal thereof; see also [0039] for cable grommet 24) molded to the at least one cable ([0035] lines 1-13) at a location along a length of the cable (Fig 1, along length of cable 22), the seal gland forming an integrated assembly (Figs 1, 2, 5, and 8, cable entry 20) that is ready for installation in a panel or an enclosure (Figs 1 and 12, installed in enclosure halves (12, 14)), the at least one cable having insulation extending on either side of the integrated assembly (Figs 1-2, cable 22 has insulation (23) on either side of the cable entry 20; note: one side is inside the enclosure (12, 14), and the other side is outside the enclosure (12, 14)).
However, Cmich fails to disclose the following: and a plurality of clips coupled to the seal gland and configured to: bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure; and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the panel or enclosure.
However, Jorgensen teaches the following: a plurality of clips (Figs 8-10, fingers 241, 242) coupled to the seal gland (Figs 8-10, electrical connector 211) and configured to: bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure (Fig 21, flexible fingers, col 4, lines 55-56, col 5, lines 23-28: inwardly angled fingers 341, 342 allow for easy insertion of cables; note: “bend inwards” is interpreted as bending towards an inner part of the panel or enclosure); and revert to a locking position to secure the seal gland to the panel or enclosure (col 5, lines 23-29: inwardly angled fingers 341, 342 allow for easy insertion of cables, while preventing inserted cables from being withdrawn back through the fingers, see also Figs 8-10 and 21, for the shapes of the recesses 249, 250 and tooth 293, together serving as locking securement of the inserted cables from being withdrawn back. col 4, lines 42-50: recesses 249 and 250 provide more contact area holding the inserted cable, thereby implying improved grip area using the round recesses 249, 250).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine Cmich by Jorgensen based on the rationales as follow: referring to Jorgensen in Figs 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18 and 21 and col 4, lines 55-56, col 5, lines 23-28: col 5, lines 23-29 and col 4, lines 42-50, the presence of the flexible inward bending fingers 241, 341, 242, 342 alongside the recesses 249, 250, 349, 350 are described to increase contact area with the held cable, and the fingers with the particular shaped ends at tooth 293 and step 291 with particular angled bevel as shown in Fig 21 and described in col 4, lines 51-66: facilitate further advantages including providing a strong and flexible finger, while decreasing grip angle that tooth grips the cable to prevent damage to the gripped cable by limiting penetration of the tooth into the cable jacket, and prevent cutting and tearing. On the other hand, Cmich fails to disclose of such extending inwardly fingers, nor tooth or step thereof. As a result, above discussed advantages of limitations taught by Jorgensen over Cmich serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Cmich by Jorgensen, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both prior art belong as analogous art in the field of cable sealing connecting system with cable gland connector seal through wall of enclosure or electrical box.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Cmich discloses wherein the seal gland is made of a material that is same as that of the at least one cable ([0038] cable grommet 24 material is thermoplastic elastomer or flexible material, [0035] plastic injection molding of both cable grommet 23 and cable jacket 23 at same time).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Cmich discloses wherein the seal gland is made of a material that is compatible with that of the at least one cable ([0038] thermoplastic elastomer or flexible material, soft or compliant material).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Cmich alone fails to sufficiently discloses wherein the plurality of clips in the locking position enable a water-tight seal of the seal gland with the panel or the enclosure.
However, Cmich and Jorgensen combined teach wherein the plurality of clips in the locking position enable a water-tight seal of the seal gland with the panel or the enclosure (Cmich: [0047] lines 1-5; Jorgensen: Fig 6, note: due to the slanted inward angled fingers 241, 341 thereby implying that any upward withdrawn back lifting of the inserted cable 22 would push at the arms 47, 48 towards the wall 31 (see Fig 3) which in turn, improving seal with respect to electrical box wall 17, see also col 5, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 8, Cmich discloses a method for providing a cable assembly ([0035] and Figs 1 and 12, entry sealing system 100 with cable entry 20 and cable 22 in cable jacket 23) comprising: providing at least one cable having insulation (Figs 1, 2, and 5, cable 22 enclosed by a cable jacket 23); and molding a seal gland to the at least one cable at a location along a length of the at least one cable to form an integrated assembly that is ready for installation in a panel or an enclosure ([0035] lines 1-13: cable jacket 23 is fused to the cable grommet 24, using plastic over-mold process, or plastic injection molding where cable grommet 24 is molded over the cable jacket 23 to provide a seal thereof; see also [0039] for further details on cable grommet 24; Fig 1, seal gland (24) to cable 24 at location along length of cable 22; Figs 1 and 12, entry sealing system 100 with cable entry 20 and cable 22 in cable jacket 23), the at least one cable having insulation extending on either side of the integrated assembly (Figs 1-2, cable 22 has insulation (23) on either side of the cable entry 20; note: one side is inside the enclosure (12, 14), and the other side is outside the enclosure (12, 14)), wherein the seal gland comprises a cable gland and a seal, and wherein the gland and the seal are provided with a sealing mechanism (Figs 1-2 and 12, sealing member 18) for a tight assembly with the enclosure ([0037]).
However, Cmich alone fails to sufficiently disclose the sealing mechanism comprising a plurality of clips coupled to the seal gland and configured to bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure and revert to a locking position.
However, Cmich and Jorgensen combined teach the sealing mechanism (Cmich: Figs 1-2 and 12, sealing member 18) comprising a plurality of clips coupled to the seal gland (Jorgensen: Figs 8-10, fingers 241, 242, electrical connector 211) and configured to bend inwards during insertion into the panel or the enclosure (Jorgensen ; Fig 21, flexible fingers, col 4, lines 55-56, col 5, lines 23-28: inwardly angled fingers 341, 342 allow for easy insertion of cables; note: “bend inwards” is interpreted as bending towards an inner part of the panel or enclosure) and revert to a locking position (col 5, lines 23-29: inwardly angled fingers 341, 342 allow for easy insertion of cables, while preventing inserted cables from being withdrawn back through the fingers, see also Figs 8-10 and 21, for the shapes of the recesses 249, 250 and tooth 293, together serving as locking securement of the inserted cables from being withdrawn back, see also col 4, lines 42-50: recesses 249 and 250 provide more contact area holding the inserted cable, thereby implying improved grip area using the round recesses 249, 250).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine Cmich by Jorgensen based on same rationales as previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmich (US 20210282287A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cmich”) in view of Jorgensen (US 7211744B2, hereinafter referred to as “Jorgensen”), and further in view of Hong Ko (US 20190174646A1, hereinafter referred to as “In Hong Ko”).
Regarding claim 15, Cmich and Jorgensen fails to disclose further comprising a strain relief mechanism integrally formed with the seal gland.
However, In Hong Ko teaches further comprising a strain relief mechanism integrally formed with the seal gland (Figs 3 and 4, external force disperser 27 and cutting grooves 271 combined, see [0047]-[0048] for details).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine Cmich by In Hong Ko in view of Jorgensen based on the rationales as follow: referring to In Hong Ko, the external force disperser 27 shown in Figs 3 and 4 and discussed in [0048] enables external forcing acting on the cable 10 to be dispersed by means of the presence of external force disperser 27. In addition, the locking protrusion 23 is able to prevent reverse rotation by being engaged with locking notches as shown in Fig 3 and discussed in [0042] and thus the risk of cable being separated from casing prevented and waterproof performance is enhanced. On the other hand, Cmich and Jorgensen fails to disclose of such external force disperser, nor such locking protrusions and locking notches. As a result, above discussed advantages of In Hong Ko over Cmich serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Cmich by In Hong Ko, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both prior art belong as analogous art in the field of cable sealing system with cable gland seal through wall of enclosure.
Regarding claim 16, Cmich fails to disclose wherein molding the seal gland further comprises molding a strain relief mechanism to form the integrated assembly.
However, In Hong Ko teaches wherein molding the seal gland further comprises molding a strain relief mechanism to form the integrated assembly (Fig 5, external force disperser 27 (strain relief mechanism) is integral to molded portion 20, see [0047] for details).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine Cmich by In Hong Ko based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 15 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection which includes new prior art Jorgensen and does not rely solely on Cmich applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith (US 20230366420A1) discloses a stud and grommet assembly with low installation effort mounted to a panel. Kiyota (US 20210257131A1) discloses a grommet and wire harness mounted to attachment panel. Plyler (US 4626620) discloses a wire bundle and grommet assembly mounted to a bulkhead panel. Karlsson (WO 2009139713A1) discloses a cable entry sealing system for mounting to a structure having a thin wall. Heimlicher (US 7408122B2) discloses a cable gland. Brian Hay (GB 2337373A) discloses a snap fit cable gland into a housing. Pallapothu (EP 1403991A2) discloses a self-sealing grommet assembly for a wire bundle into a wall panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632