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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/2026 has been entered.
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 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex Cheng-Chi Yang et al. (US 10594121 hereinafter Yang) in view of Wiese (US 10777983 hereinafter Wiese).
In regards to claim 1, Yang discloses;” A junction box (abstract) comprising: a housing comprising a plurality of sides and a bottom (Fig. 2 (shown)), the plurality of sides and the bottom comprising a housing material, the housing material fabricated from a non-metallic material (Col. 2, Lines 39-41); and a drill pattern in a bottom, (Col. 6, Lines 26-33) the drill pattern comprising a recess indicating a location for creating a hole through the housing (Col. 6, Lines 26-33 where a dimple is a recess)”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein a thickness of the housing material under the drill pattern is sized to meet a fire rating standard applicable to a location where the junction box is installed.”
However Wiese discloses an electrical junction box with a flashing used in weather and water environments that is also fireproof. A standard of fireproofing by Wiese is disclosed (Col’s. 6 and 7 Lines 58-67 and 1-3). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate fireproofing of a junction box that contains electrical systems. If a fault occurs in the box, the fire is contained and not spread externally, conversely, the electrical systems within are protected from an external fire or excessive temperatures. Because the junction box as disclosed by Yang is uniform in thickness as shown in figures 2A thru 3C. Using the fire rating standard disclosed by Wiese with the junction box disclosed by Yang, the fire rating standard applicable to a location where the junction box is installed would be achieved. Thus claim 1 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 13, a modified Yang discloses;” The junction box of claim 1, wherein the non-metallic material of the housing comprises a plastic material, a polycarbonate material, a polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") material, an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) material, acrylonitrile styrene and polycarbonate blend (ASA+PC) material, and/or a polycarbonate and ABS blend (PC+ABS) material (Yang Col. 6, Lines 8-12).”
In regards to claim 14, Yang discloses;” A junction box (Abstract) comprising: a housing comprising a plurality of sides and a bottom (Fig. 2 (shown)), the plurality of sides and the bottom comprising a housing material, the housing material fabricated from a non-metallic material (Col. 2, Lines 39-41); one or more drill patterns in a bottom, each of the one or more drill patterns (Col. 6, Lines 26-33) comprising a recess indicating a location for creating a hole through the housing (Col. 6, Lines 36-39 where a dimple is a recess); the bottom surrounding the one or more drill patterns, or the bottom suitable for penetrating the housing(Col. 6, Lines 36-39)”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein a thickness of the housing material under the one or more drill patterns is sized to meet a fire rating standard applicable to a location where the junction box is installed.”
However Wiese discloses an electrical junction box with a flashing used in weather and water environments that is also fireproof. A standard of fireproofing by Wiese is disclosed (Col’s. 6 and 7 Lines 58-67 and 1-3). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate fireproofing of a junction box that contains electrical systems. If a fault occurs in the box, the fire is contained and not spread externally, conversely, the electrical systems within are protected from an external fire or excessive temperatures. Because the junction box as disclosed by Yang is uniform in thickness as shown in figures 2A thru 3C. Using the fire rating standard disclosed by Wiese with the junction box disclosed by Yang, the fire rating standard applicable to a location where the junction box is installed would be achieved. Thus claim 14 is disclosed.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex Cheng-Chi Yang et al. (US 10594121 hereinafter Yang) in view of Wiese (US 10777983 hereinafter Wiese) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Buck et al. (US 20170268758 hereinafter Buck).
In regards to claim 12, a modified Yang discloses;” The junction box of claim 1, wherein the housing is configured to mount to a sloped roof of a structure (Yang Fig. 1)”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the housing comprises one or more weep holes through the housing positioned on a downslope side of the housing, the one or more weep holes extending on the downslope side a distance from the bottom of the housing.”
How ever Buck discloses a weeping hole in a junction box as shown in figure 25 (964), paragraph 0012. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include a path for condensed moisture or any water that enters the junction box to exit. Therefore, using the weep / drainage hole as disclosed by Buck with the modified Yang structure, the claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 19, a modified Yang discloses;” The junction box of claim 14, wherein the housing is configured to mount to a sloped roof of a structure (Yang Fig. 1).”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the housing comprises one or more weep holes through the housing positioned on a downslope side of the housing, the one or more weep holes extending on the downslope side a distance from the bottom of the housing.”
How ever Buck discloses a weeping hole in a junction box as shown in figure 25 (964), paragraph 0012. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include a path for condensed moisture or any water that enters the junction box to exit. Therefore, using the weep / drainage hole as disclosed by Buck with the modified Yang structure, the claimed invention is disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 15-18 are 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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 with the allowable feature being:” A junction box comprising: a housing comprising a plurality of sides and a bottom, the plurality of sides and the bottom comprising a housing material, the housing material fabricated from a non-metallic material, the housing configured to mount to a sloped roof of a structure; one or more first drill patterns in a side of the plurality of side and/or the bottom, each of the one or more drill patterns comprising a first recess indicating a location for creating a hole through the housing; one or more second drill patterns positioned on a side of the housing opposite the one or more first drill patterns, the one or more second drill patterns each comprising a second recess indicating a location for creating a hole through the housing, each of the one or more second recesses aligned with a corresponding first recess; a drill zone marking on a side of the plurality of sides and/or the bottom surrounding the one or more drill patterns, the drill zone marking indicative of locations on the side of the plurality of sides and/or the bottom suitable for penetrating the housing; and flashing extending along a plane parallel to an exterior side of the bottom in a direction away from the housing, wherein a thickness of the housing material between each of the first recesses and the corresponding second recesses is sized to meet a fire rating standard applicable to a location where the junction box is installed.”
Therefore, claim 20 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
