DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 18/859,736 for a Holder for Placement in and/or Against an Opening in a Construction Element and for Having Cables Sealingly Extending Through Channels in the Holder.
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and/or” which is indefinite as it is not clear what is or is not covered by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 20 2016 103494 to Conta-Clip Verbindungstechnik GMBH (referred to hereinafter as Conta-Clip). Regarding claim 1, Conta-Clip discloses a holder (see figure 1) for placement in or against an opening in a construction element. The holder is provided with a flange for extending outside of the opening beyond a perimeter of the opening. The holder is provided with a plurality of channels (9) for hosing in each channel at least one cable (2) for extending from one side of the holder to another side of the holder. The holder is provided with a gasket (4) for placing the holder so that the gasket is able to provide a seal between the flange and an endless part of the construction element that completely surrounds the perimeter of the opening. The gasket is an integral part of the holder as the gasket and the holder are each part of the same monolithic product.
Regarding claim 4, the flange is provided with a number of through-holes (at 6), each through-hole for extending a fixing element (6) therethrough for fixing the holder against a construction element. Regarding claim 5, the holder is part of a system that includes a number of fixing elements (6… see figure 1). Regarding claim 6, each fixing element (6) comprises a bolt (See figure 4). Regarding claim 8, each through-hole is surrounded by a ridge that completely surrounds the through hole (see figures 1, 2, and 4… each opening receiving 6 is recessed creating a ridge around each hole). Regarding claim 9, the holder is made of a material that predominantly comprises rubber. Regarding claim 10, the holder is of rubber.
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.
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conta-Clip in view of NZ 543300 to Haynes. Regarding claim 2, Contra-Clip disclose the gasket as comprising a face for abutting against the endless part of the construction element, but does not disclose the face as comprising a plurality of ridges that extend in a direction along a perimeter of the flange for enclosing air between the gasket and the endless part. Haynes provides a teaching for providing a plurality of ridges (8) that extend in a direction along a perimeter of a flange for forming a sealing point enclosing air between the gasket and another part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to have provided a plurality of ridges along a perimeter of the flange of Conta-Clip to provide a seal between the gasket and endless part as taught by Haynes.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conta-Clip in view of Official notice provided by the Examiner. Conta-Clip does not specifically disclose the bolt as being provided with a sealing washer. However, the Examiner is providing official notice that sealing washers are commonly used in the art with bolts for a secure fit when attaching structure together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have used a sealing washer to provide a secure fit for the bolt of the holder as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conta-Clip. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Conta-Clip does not disclose the rubber as ceramafiable rubber or silicone-based rubber. However, the specific type of rubber is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Conta-Clip does not disclose the holder as part of a system that further includes at least one sealing plug for sealing off at least one of the plurality of channels when that at least one channel hosts at least one cable for extending from one side of the holder to another side of the holder. However, Applicant’s specification discloses that the sealing plugs used in the invention are previously disclosed in the art (see page 7, lines 2-7).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Conta-Clip does not disclose the rubber of the holder as about 76 Shoe A hardness and the Shore A hardness of the rubber of the at least one sealing plug as about 74 Shore A. However, the specific hardness of the rubber of the sealing plug and holder are design preferences that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Conta-Clip does not disclose the rubber as ceramafiable rubber or silicone-based rubber. However, the specific type of rubber is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0001261 to Mijajima
US 2025/0012395 to Kim
US 5949022 to Park
US 2004/0211774 to Dauod
US 2023/0354540 to Gao
US 4103911 to Giebel
US 2025/0305598 to Chen
US 5442140 to McGrane
EP 1892448 to Beele
EP 499533
The above prior art discloses various conduit holders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 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 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights