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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). It is respectfully requested that applicant point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson (US 8,944,476) which in figures 1B and 3A-3B disclose the following claimed invention:
In re claim 13: A locking case, comprising: a base 103 and a lid 102 having a clamshell coupling, wherein, at least one of the base 103 and the lid 102 comprises: a channel (channel with gasket 300) formed at an interface between the base 103 and the lid 102; a seal 300 arranged within the respective channel; and one or more pass-through channels channel that 100 is positioned in in figure 1B); and at least one latch 100 configured to be rotatable between an open position and a closed position, wherein rotation of the at least one latch 10 to the closed position exerts a compressive force on the seal 300 (see figures 3A and 3B below of Henderson).
In re claim 14: each of the at least one latch 100 comprises: a first end pivotably coupled to the lid 102; a second end configured to removably engage with the base 103, wherein the second end of a respective latch 100 comprises an end-protrusion 216 configured for removably engaging with a first protruding edge 301 of the base 103, and wherein the rotation of the at least one latch 100 between the open position and the closed position is based at least in part on an engagement or disengagement of the second end of the respective latch 100 with the base 103; and at least one protrusion arranged between the first end and the second end of the respective latch 100 (see figures 3A and 3B below of Henderson).
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US 8,944,476) in view of Arnett et al. (US 7,837,053).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: Henderson discloses a locking case comprising: a base 103 and a lid 120, wherein at least one of the base 103 and the lid 102 comprises a double wall design, the double wall design including a first wall 1st, a second wall 2nd, and a channel formed between the first wall 1st and the second wall 2nd; a gasket 300 positioned within the channel; a latch 100 comprising a first end and a second end, and a first one or more protrusions positioned between the first end and the second end, the second end comprising a second protrusion 216 configured for removably engaging with a third protrusion 301 of the base 103, wherein the first end is rotatably coupled 104 to the lid 102; and wherein, closure of the latch 100 is configured to cause the first one or more protrusions of the latch 100 to interface with one or more of the base 103 and the lid 102 to compress the gasket 300 between the base 103 and the lid 102 (see figures 3a and 3B above of Henderson).
Henderson discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Arnett et al.:
at least one passive pressure equalization element 30 integrated into the case 20 (see figure 1 of Arnett et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the case of Henderson with a passive pressure element as taught by Arnett et al. in order to prevent pressure within the container to be less then outside and prevent opening (see col.6, ll.25-46 of Arnett et al.).
In re claim 2: when the closing force is applied between the base 103 and the lid 102, the locking case is in a closed position and the latch 100 is engaged with both the base 103 and the lid 104; and when the locking case is in an open position, the second end of the latch 100 is disengaged from the first portion 302 of the base 103 (see figures 3a and 3B above of Henderson).
In re claim 3: the first portion 302 of the base 103 comprises a shelf feature 302 for engaging with the second end (216 of the second end) of the latch 100, and the shelf feature is configured to transfer an engagement force from the latch 100 toward the lid 102 when the second end of the latch 100 is engaged with the first portion 302 of the base 103, such that the gasket 300 becomes more compressed between the base 103 and the lid 102 than when the second end of the latch 100 is not engaged with the first portion 302 of the base 103 (see figures 3a and 3B above of Henderson).
In re claim 4: the one or more protrusions 216 comprises a second protrusion 216 configured to interface with one of a protruding edge 302 on the base 103 (see figures 3a and 3B above of Henderson).
In re claim 7: the at least one passive pressure equalization element 60 comprises one or more of a valve 60 and a vent 60, and wherein the at least one passive pressure equalization element 60 is configured to regulate pressure gradients between an internal pressure in an interior of the locking case and an atmospheric pressure external of the locking case (see col.6, ll.25-46 of Arnett et al.).
In re claim 8 the gasket 300 comprises a weather-resistant seal that is configured to be fitted within the channel and shaped and sized to encircle a perimeter of the locking case, and wherein one of: the weather-resistant seal is formed as a unitary piece; or the weather-resistant seal comprises one or more seal sections and one or more seal butt joints (see figures 3a and 3B above of Henderson).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-11 and 15-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art that teaches and discloses structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735