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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Line 18-19 cites “a downward flexural deformation of the second side wall”. It is confusing as to what this limitation means, since a downward deformation would entail an axially oriented compressive force, and line 9 defines the second side wall as having “flexural deformation”. Furthermore, no support was found in the instant application for the claimed “downward flexural deformation”, and examination of figures 1-2, 4 and 9, of applicant’s disclosure appears to show sidewalls 32 would be incapable of such deformation”.
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Line 18-19 cites “a downward flexural deformation of the second side wall”. It is confusing as to what this limitation means, since a downward deformation would entail an axially oriented compressive force, and line 9 defines the second side wall as having “flexural deformation”. Furthermore, no support was found in the instant application for the claimed “downward flexural deformation”, and examination of figures 1-2, 4 and 9, of applicant’s disclosure appears to show sidewalls 32 would be incapable of such deformation.
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darr et al (US 20040264113; “Darr” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Darr teaches: an electrical junction box (10) comprising:
a circuit board (18, fig. 2);
a first case (14, fig. 4) including a first side wall (14b, 14c, fig. 2) and covering one surface of the circuit board (figs. 1-3);
a second case (12, fig. 2) including a second side wall (12b, 12c, fig. 2) that covers the first side wall from an outer side (fig. 1),
the second case covering another surface of the circuit board opposite the one surface (figs. 1-3);
wherein the first side wall includes a protruding portion (16a, fig. 2) protruding toward the second side wall,
the second side wall includes a fitting hole (16b, fig. 2, “snap lock part 16b, which is in the form of a relief or opening 16c”, ¶[0018]) into which the protruding portion is forcibly
fitted by flexural deformation of the second side wall (“resulting in a camming engagement between the two parts 16a, 16b. This causes a deflection between the snap lock parts 16a, 16b”, ¶[0018], [0025]),
the first case includes:
a first contact portion (24, fig. 2) configured to come into contact with the one
surface of the circuit board (fig. 4, ¶[0027]), and
the second case includes:
a pair of second contact portions (24, fig. 2) that come into contact with the other surface of the circuit board (fig. 4, ¶[0027]) at two positions interposing the fitting hole of the second side wall therebetween (fig. 2 discloses this limitation),
and
a non-contact portion (inner surface of sidewalls 12b, 12c in between the second contact portions 24, and 12a, fig. 2) that does not to come into contact with the other surface, the non-contact portion and the pair of second contact portions disposed on an inner surface of the second side wall (fig. 2), and wherein the non-contact portion extends in a non-loaded state (fig. 2) along an axis (space between second contact portions 24) between the pair of second contact portions (“supports 24 and support pads 26 support the PCB elements 18b, 18b in spaced relation in an axial direction (i.e., a vertical direction when viewing FIGS. 3 and 4) to corresponding housing portions 12, 14”, ¶[0027]) in order to allow a downward flexural deformation of the second side wall (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 2-3 and ¶[0018], where 16a contacts unlabeled protruding portion ‘P’ in annotated figs. 2-3 below, therefore deformation of the second side wall occurs to allow engagement between the first and second case) so as to facilitate positioning the fitting hole into engagement with protruding portion (fig. 3, ¶[0018]).
PNG
media_image1.png
267
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
321
885
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Darr teaches: an electrical junction box (10) comprising:
a circuit board (18, fig. 2) having a through hole (38, fig. 2) centered (fig. 3 discloses the through hole centered on the circuit board) on the circuit board;
a first case (12, fig. 4) including a first side wall (12b, 12c, fig. 2) and covering one surface of the circuit board (figs. 1-3);
a second case (14, fig. 2) including a second side wall (14b, 14c, fig. 2) that covers the first side wall from an outer side (fig. 1),
the second case covering another surface (see ‘S2’ in annotated fig. 3 below) of the circuit board opposite the one surface (figs. 1-3);
wherein the first case includes:
a first contact portion (24, fig. 2) that comes into contact with the one surface of the circuit board (fig. 4, ¶[0027]).
a claw body (36, fig. 2) that is disposed on an inner surface (12a, fig. 2, ¶[0024]) of the first case, the claw body being centered on the inner surface (fig. 3) and being deformable in a curvature manner (“The head 36a of each retainer 36 is configured with flexible prongs that snap through a hole 38”, ¶[0024) toward the second side wall side with respect to the first side wall (this limitation is met due to the radius of curvature formed by the inward flexing of the distal ends of the flexible prongs in order to pass through hole 36, see annotated fig. 3 below, and ¶[0024]),
PNG
media_image3.png
297
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the claw body is registered to engage the through hole of the circuit board (fig. 3, ¶[0024]) and allows the first contact portion to come into contact with the one surface of the circuit board by the curvature deformation (fig. 3, ¶[0024]), and is formed such that the claw body hooks onto the other surface (‘S2’ in annotated fig. 3 below) of the circuit board by the curvature deformation being canceled (release of inward flexing of the flexible prongs) in the state where the first contact portion is in contact with the one surface (‘S1’ in annotated fig. 3 below, and fig. 4) of the circuit board (as shown in fig. 4, ¶[0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darr, in view of Koike et al (US 20030147228; “Koike” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Darr teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first case further includes a claw body that is deformable in a curvature manner
toward the second side wall side with respect to the first side wall, and
the claw body allows the first contact portion to come into contact with the one surface of
the circuit board by the curvature deformation, and is formed such that the claw body hooks onto
the other surface of the circuit board by the curvature deformation being canceled in the state where
the first contact portion is in contact with the one surface of the circuit board.
However, Koike teaches:
a first case (12, fig. 2) includes a claw body (1, figs. 1-2) that is deformable in a curvature manner (figs. 1 and 8 discloses this limitation, where portion 1b of 1, would represent the radius of curvature, ¶[0037]) toward a second side wall side (14a, figs. 1 and 11) with respect to a first side wall (12a, fig. 5), and
the claw body allows a first contact portion (24a) to come into contact with one surface of
the circuit board by the curvature deformation (fig. 8), and is formed such that the claw body hooks onto the other surface of the circuit board by the curvature deformation being canceled in the state where the first contact portion is in contact with the one surface of the circuit board (as disclosed upon examination of figures 1, 8 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to Modify the first case of Darr and include Koike’s claw body, such that first case further includes a claw body that is deformable in a curvature manner toward the second side wall side with respect to the first side wall, and the claw body allows the first contact portion to come into contact with the one surface of the circuit board by the curvature deformation, and is formed such that the claw body hooks onto the other surface of the circuit board by the curvature deformation being canceled in the state where the first contact portion is in contact with the one surface of the circuit board, in order to provide an circuit board engagement structure capable of withstanding stress produced by volumetric variation and/or vibration (¶[0012]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Koike. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darr, in view of Koike et al (US 20030147228; “Koike” hereinafter), and further in view of Tsukahara (JP 2013004617 A; “Tsukahara” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Darr in view of Koike teaches the limitations of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second case further includes a restricting portion that restricts the curvature
deformation by coming into contact with the claw body in a state where the claw body hooks onto
the other surface of the circuit board.
However, Tsukahara teaches:
a second case (2, fig. 12) further includes a restricting portion (9G, fig. 12) that restricts curvature
deformation (fig. 5A) by coming into contact with a claw body (7, fig. 12) in a state where the claw body hooks onto a surface of a circuit board (6, fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Darr in view if Koike, and include Tsukahara’s restricting portion, such that the second case further includes a restricting portion that restricts the curvature deformation by coming into contact with the claw body in a state where the claw body hooks onto the other surface of the circuit board, in order to improve the holding force of the claw body with the circuit board with a simple configuration (¶[0007],[0033]-[0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
“In contrast, the edge supports (24) of Darr are rigid, fixed internal formatting blocks configured specifically to isolate and securely support a multi-layered, overlapping electronic board assembly in a static spatial orientation. Darr contains no disclosure or suggestion of an inner wall surface configured to extend along an un-loaded axis between contact points to permit localized housing wall deformation. Furthermore, Darr could not be modified to include the claimed non-loaded axis or to permit such downward flexural deformation. Because Darr's architecture relies on linear, lateral assembly forces and totally unyielding wall spacing to preserve the strict positional gaps required by its dual-board configuration, introducing a localized, flexible snapping wall layout would compromise the structural rigidity necessary to keep the overlapping boards separated”.
Examiner’s response:
Darr’s edge support (24) are disclosed as spaced apart, (and not a continuous circumferential support) with “gaps” between said edge supports. As explained above in the current office action, the side walls must deform in order to allow the protruding portion and the fitting hole of Darr to snap fit (“forcibly”) together.
Applicant’s second argument:
“Darr is structurally incompatible with a central through-hole anchoring configuration. Darr's architecture is directed to a dual, multi-layered board assembly where the overlapping circuit board elements must be kept isolated from each other. Darr achieves board stabilization strictly at the outer peripheral boundaries using static edge supports (24) and external spacing components. Because Darr's design relies on clear, unyielding spatial boundaries between the overlapping boards, it contains no structural provisions for a localized internal pivot. Furthermore, Darr could not be modified to accommodate a center-flexing claw passing through the middle of the board without completely disrupting the strict positional layout and isolation gaps required to keep its dual boards from touching or shorting”.
Examiner’s response:
Darr comprises a centered hole (38, fig. 3) in the circuit board, fixing the circuit board in the first case, in tandem with the edge supports (24) as shown in figure 3. Therefore Darr teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights