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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 12 – 21) in the reply filed on 08/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COENEGRACHT et al. (US 20180278037 A1, “COENEGRACHT”) in view of Yin (US 20120043103 A1, “Yin”).
Regarding claim 12, COENEGRACHT discloses (Fig. 2) an enclosure having a perimeter sealing arrangement, the enclosure comprising: a molded plastic housing including first (101) and second housing (102) pieces that fit together to enclose an interior of the molded plastic housing, the perimeter sealing arrangement (103) of the enclosure being configured to provide sealing between the first and second housing pieces (para [0034]) about a perimeter of the molded plastic housing when the first and second housing pieces are fitted together, the perimeter sealing arrangement including a sealant-receiving region (103) defined by the first housing piece, the sealant-receiving region including a sealing channel portion defined by a channel-defining portion (walls of 103) of the first housing piece and a cable pass-through pocket portion defined by a pocket-defining portion (105) of the first housing piece, the channel-defining portion defining a channel upper boundary, the second housing piece defining a perimeter sealing rib configured to project into the sealing channel portion of the sealant-receiving region of the first housing piece when the first and second housing pieces are fitted together; an elastomeric cup positioned in the cable pass-through pocket portion of the sealant- receiving region, the elastomeric cup (Boundary walls 140) including a cup wall defining a cup upper boundary that is higher than a channel upper boundary, the cup wall being positioned to separate the cable pass- through pocket portion from the sealing channel portion; and sealant gel (126) positioned within the sealing channel portion and the elastomeric cup, the sealant gel in the elastomeric cup having an upper surface set at a higher level than an upper surface of the sealant gel in the sealing channel portion.
COENEGRACHT is silent on a cup upper boundary that is higher than a channel upper boundary, the sealant gel in the elastomeric cup having an upper surface set at a higher level than an upper surface of the sealant gel in the sealing channel portion.
However, Yin discloses (Fig. 1, 2) a cup upper boundary that is higher than a channel upper boundary, the sealant gel in the elastomeric cup having an upper surface set at a higher level than an upper surface of the sealant gel in the sealing channel portion (See para [0021] – [0024]).
COENEGRACHT and Yin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of enclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified COENEGRACHT to incorporate the teachings of Yin and provide a cup upper boundary that is higher than a channel upper boundary, the sealant gel in the elastomeric cup having an upper surface set at a higher level than an upper surface of the sealant gel in the sealing channel portion (See para [0021] – [0024]). Doing so would provide a better contact with the sealant and thus achieve a better sealing (para [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12, wherein COENEGRACHT further discloses the sealant gel includes a silicone gel (para [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12, wherein COENEGRACHT further discloses the sealant gel is softer and has a slower recovery time than the elastomeric cup (para [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12, wherein COENEGRACHT further discloses the elastomeric cup has an open bottom (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12, wherein Yin further discloses the upper surface of the sealant gel in the elastomeric cup is positioned at the cup upper boundary (para [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12, wherein COENEGRACHT further discloses the sealant gel is filled in the sealing channel portion to below the channel upper boundary (para [0037], [0038]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COENEGRACHT et al. (US 20180278037 A1, “COENEGRACHT”) in view of Yin (US 20120043103 A1, “Yin”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Stora (US 20050167431 A1, “Stora”).
Regarding claim 13, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12,
COENEGRACHT in view of Yin is silent on wherein the sealant gel is a liquid-applied sealant that is cured within the sealing channel portion and the elastomeric cup to form the sealant gel.
However, Stora discloses (Fig. 1, 2) wherein the sealant gel is a liquid-applied sealant that is cured within the sealing channel portion and the elastomeric cup to form the sealant gel (See para [0020] – [0021]).
COENEGRACHT in view of Yin and Stora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of enclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified COENEGRACHT in view of Yin to incorporate the teachings of Stora and provide wherein the sealant gel is a liquid-applied sealant that is cured within the sealing channel portion and the elastomeric cup to form the sealant gel (See para [0020] – [0021]). Doing so would provide a long-term elasticity and resist irreversible deformation for the sealant gel (para [0024]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COENEGRACHT et al. (US 20180278037 A1, “COENEGRACHT”) in view of Yin (US 20120043103 A1, “Yin”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Burr (US 20030146355 A1, “Burr”).
Regarding claim 16, COENEGRACHT in view of Yin discloses the enclosure of claim 12,
COENEGRACHT in view of Yin is silent on wherein the elastomeric cup has a composition including silicone rubber.
However, Burr discloses wherein the elastomeric cup has a composition including silicone rubber (See para [0027]).
COENEGRACHT in view of Yin and Burr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of enclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified COENEGRACHT in view of Yin to incorporate the teachings of Burr and provide wherein the elastomeric cup has a composition including silicone rubber (See para [0027]). Doing so would provide strength and shock resistance (para [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 – 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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 on 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847