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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 4751947).
Regarding claim 1, Landers discloses a device for engaging a conduit Fig. 1 and further engaging one electrical wire 12 or an electrical wire assembly, the conduit 10 having a diameter, the device comprising: a resilient body 32 having a top, a bottom and a sidewall, at least one bore 19 therethrough and at least a slot 18 through the top, bottom and sidewall connecting the bore and the sidewall, the slot manually openable but biased in a closed position; wherein the body has a hardness of Shore OO 10 to Shore D 70. However, Landers fails to explicitly discloses the configuration of the body being frustoconical wherein the top of the body has a diameter greater than the diameter of the conduit, wherein the bottom of the body has a diameter less than the diameter of the conduit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the body to accommodate a specific space within a sealing assembly and since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 2-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 4751947) in view of Archer et al. (US 2015/0069059).
Regarding claim 2, Landers disclose the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body includes a critter resistant chemical. Archer et al., a barrier seal 10 Fig. 1, discloses the use of a critter resistant chemical (liquid termite formulation, Para. 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Landers with a critter resistant chemical as taught by Archer et al. in order to prevent critters or the like from entering the assembly. Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein the sidewall is smooth Fig. 2. Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein the sidewall has circumferential ribs (26 of Archer et al.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses wherein the slot 18 is perpendicular to the top wall.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the slot 18 is angled with respect to the top wall.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body includes a second bore and a second slot, the second slot connecting the first bore to the second bore. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses where the hardness of the body 32 is in the range of Shore A 30 to Shore A 100 (polyethylene).
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly wherein the diameter of the top of the body is between 1" and 6". Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the slant angle of the frustum to any number of ranges (i.e. 1" and 6") disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses wherein the body 32 includes a removable member 30.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 14-21 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 4751947) in view of Archer et al. (US 2015/0069059) and further in view of Busby et al. (US 2003/0234498).
Regarding claim 7, Landers and Archer et al. disclose the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose an elastomer sealant contacting at least some of the walls of the body. Busby et al., a plug gasket Fig. 15A discloses the use of an elastomer sealant 13 contacting walls of a body 10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to provide the body of Landers with an elastomer sealant as taught by Busby et al. in order to help provide an effective seal around the wires.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein the elastomer sealant 13 is a tape or a mix.
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 17, the combination discloses wherein the elastomer sealant 13 includes a critter resistant chemical.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses an assembly Fig. 1 for protecting an electrical wire 12 or wires enclosed in a conduit 10, the conduit having a diameter, the assembly comprising: a first plug 32 comprising a resilient body having a top, a bottom and a sidewall and at least one bore 19 there through and a slot 18 through the top, bottom and sidewall connecting the bore and the sidewall, the slot manually openable but biased in a closed position; wherein the composition of the body comprises a hardness of Shore OO 10 to Shore D 70 (polyethylene); wherein the top of the plug has a diameter greater than the diameter of the conduit; an elastomer sealant (13 of Busby); wherein the electrical wire or wires fit within the bore of the plug; and wherein the elastomer is deposed between the wires in the bore and the inner walls of the bore, but fails to explicitly disclose a configuration where the body has a frustoconical shape wherein the bottom of the plug has a diameter less than the diameter of the conduit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the slot 18 is a first slot and the bore 19 is a first bore, but fails to explicitly disclose a duplicate second bore and a second slot, the second slot connecting the first bore to the second bore. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses further including a second plug 16, the second plug adapted to engage the conduit 10 and the wire or wires 12.
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses further including a cured elastomer mix 13 in the conduit between the first and second plugs 32, 16.
Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses a method for protecting an electrical wire or wires 12 running through a conduit 10 of an enclosure, the method comprising the steps of: providing an elastomer 13; providing a plug 32, the plug comprising an at least partially frustoconical, elastomeric body having a top, a bottom and a sidewall and at least one bore 19 there through and a slot 18 through the top, bottom and sidewall connecting the bore and the sidewall, the slot manually openable but biased in a closed position, wherein the plug body has a hardness of Shore OO 10 to Shore D 70, wherein the composition of the body comprises critter resistant chemicals, wherein the top of the plug has a diameter greater than the diameter of the conduit, and wherein the bottom of the plug has a diameter less than the diameter of the conduit; opening the slot in the plug; inserting the electrical wire or wires into the bore; forcing the plug, bottom first, into the conduit; and placing the elastomer into the bore such that it contacts the inner walls of the bore and the wire or wires.
Regarding claim 23, the combination discloses wherein the elastomer 13 of the placing step is a cured polymer tape.
Regarding claim 24, the combination discloses wherein the elastomer (13 of Busby) of the placing step is an injectable, two-part, cure-in-place polymer.
Regarding claim 25, the combination discloses wherein the plug 32 of the providing step has more than one bore 19.
Regarding claim 26, the combination discloses wherein the forcing step includes the step of hammering (push) the top of the plug 32.
Regarding claim 27, the combination discloses a kit for sealing a conduit 10 in an enclosure, the kit comprising at least: a resilient, conduit plug 32 having a bore 19 in a body thereof, the plug sized for an interference fit with a conduit of an enclosure; and a sealant (13 of Busby) chosen from a group comprising: a two-part, cure-in-place injectable or a tape comprising a cured elastomer, but fails to explicitly disclose a configuration where the body has a frustoconical shape wherein the bottom of the plug has a diameter less than the diameter of the conduit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 28, the combination discloses including multiple plugs 32, 16.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 4751947) in view of Archer et al. (US 2015/0069059) and further in view of Beele (Us 2013/0106060).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a lubricant on at least some of the sidewall of the body. Beele a sealing assembly for providing in an opening a sealing through which at least one cable, pipe or duct extends, discloses the use of a lubricant on at least some of the sidewall of the body 16 (Para. 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plug of Landers with a lubricant as taught by Beele in order to provide for a relatively easy way of inserting the assembled assembly into the opening and of inserting an inner plug for sealingly filling a space in a conduit. (Para. 0013 of Beele)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 4751947) in view of Archer et al. (US 2015/0069059) and further in view of Busby et al. (US 2003/0234498) and Beele (US 2013/0106060).
Regarding claim 22, Landers, Archer et al. and Busby et al. disclose the invention as claimed above but fail to explicitly disclose a lubricant on at least some of the sidewall of the body. Beele a sealing assembly for providing in an opening a sealing through which at least one cable, pipe or duct extends, discloses the use of a lubricant on at least some of the sidewall of the body 16 (Para. 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plug of Landers with a lubricant as taught by Beele in order to provide for a relatively easy way of inserting the assembled assembly into the opening and of inserting an inner plug for sealingly filling a space in a conduit. (Para. 0013 of Beele)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675