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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 19903515 A1 GABO SYSTEMTECH GMBH [DE] (GABO).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
281
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, GABO discloses a set of devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) comprising at least two devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) for performing conduits (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), pipes and/or cables through a part of a building, each having a housing (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) with a housing wall (Annotated GABO Fig. B above), wherein the housing (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) has an axial passage channel (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) which is bounded by the housing wall (Annotated GABO Fig. B above), extends in the longitudinal direction (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) and has an opening (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) at opposite ends (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) in each case, wherein the devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) have a length (Annotated GABO Fig. C above) in the longitudinal direction (Annotated GABO Fig. C above) and each having a rectangular cross section (Annotated GABO Fig. C above) arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Annotated GABO Fig. C above), wherein the at least two devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) each have at least one connection area (Annotated GABO Fig. B above), wherein at least one separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) is provided by which the at least two devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) can be releasably connected to one another in the connection areas (Annotated GABO Fig. B above).
Regarding claim 2, GABO discloses that the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) is connectable to the two devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) in a clip-like manner (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 3, GABO discloses that the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) has a central receiving area (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) which is provided for jointly enclosing a wall area (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) of a first device (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) and a wall area (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) of a second device (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 4, GABO discloses that the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) has two legs (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), wherein one leg (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) at a time is adapted to latch to a device (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 6, GABO discloses that the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) has a substantially W-shaped cross-section (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 12, GABO discloses that at least one device (Annotated GABO Fig. C above) has a square cross section (Annotated GABO Fig. C above).
Regarding claim 13, GABO discloses that the lengths (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) of the devices (Annotated GABO Fig. B above) are substantially identical (Annotated GABO Fig. B above).
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) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19903515 A1 GABO SYSTEMTECH GMBH [DE] (GABO) in view of US 4304079 A Thorsten (Thorsten).
PNG
media_image4.png
569
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, GABO discloses that the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) . . . the separate connecting element (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) from the devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A).
GABO fails to disclose at least one area operable by means of a tool for detachment. However, Thorsten teaches one area operable by means of a tool (See Thorsten col. 5 ln. 22-24) for detachment (See Thorsten col. 5 ln. 22-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting element of GABO by incorporating at least one area operable by means of a tool for detaching the connecting element from the devices, as taught by Thorsten, in order to enable controlled deliberate release of the connecting element from the devices while resisting inadvertent or accidental detachment during normal use. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the incorporation of known tool-actuated release feature into a known connecting element for its established purpose of facilitating detachment. Moreover, doing so would allow a technician to disassemble or reconfigure the set of devices using common tools, reducing the risk of damage to the devices or connecting element that could result from detachment by hand.
Regarding claim 14, GABO discloses at least two devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
GABO fails to disclose that a frame is provided, which is provided for attachment to a wall or ceiling and defines a receiving space which is provided for loading and in which at least said two devices can be arranged. However, Thorsten teaches that a frame (Annotated Thurston Fig. A above) is provided, which is provided for attachment to a wall (Annotated Thurston Fig. A above) or ceiling and defines a receiving space (Annotated Thurston Fig. A above) which is provided for loading and in which at least said two devices can be arranged.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the set of devices of GABO by incorporating a frame provided for attachment to a wall or ceiling and defining a receiving space for loading, in which at least two devices can be arranged, as taught by Thorsten, in order to provide a dedicated structural mount that secures the set of devices as a unit to the building structure. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the incorporation of a known mounting frame into a known set of pass-through devices for its established purpose of supporting and organizing multiple devices at a fixed building location. Moreover, doing so would allow devices to be pre-arranged and loaded into the frame prior to or during installation, simplifying assembly, promoting consistent alignment and spacing of the devices relative to one another, and facilitating subsequent access for maintenance or reconfiguration.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19903515 A1 GABO SYSTEMTECH GMBH [DE] (GABO) in view of DE 29511674 U1 POLYURETHAN ELEMENT TECHNIK GM [DE] (TECHNIK).
PNG
media_image5.png
746
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, GABO discloses that the devices (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) have a width (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) in a transverse direction (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) and a height (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) in an upward direction (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), wherein a first device (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) has a width (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), a height (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) and a length (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), and a second device (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) has a width (Annotated GABO Fig. A above), a height (Annotated GABO Fig. A above) and a length (Annotated GABO Fig. A above).
GABO fails to disclose a ratio of the height of the second device to the height of the first device is n1/x1, where n1 and x1 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical, and/or a ratio of the width of the second device to the width of the first device is n2/x2, wherein n2 and x2 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical. However, TECHNIK teaches a ratio of the height (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) of the second device (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) to the height (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) of the first device (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) is n1/x1, where n1 and x1 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical, and/or a ratio of the width (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) of the second device (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) to the width (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) of the first device (Annotated TECHNIK Fig. A) is n2/x2, wherein n2 and x2 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the set of devices of GABO by sizing the first and second devices such that the ratio of their heights and/or the ratio of their widths is n1/x1 and/or n2/x2, respectively, where n1, x1, n2, and x2 are natural numbers and are not identical, as taught by TECHNIK, in order to accommodate devices of different dimensions within the same set for routing lines, pipes, and/or cables of correspondingly different sizes through a building. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the incorporation of a known relative-sizing arrangement between devices into a known set of pass-through devices for its established purpose of allowing devise of varying dimensions to be used together. Moreover, doing so would allow a singlet set to flexibly accommodate a range of line, pipe, and/or cable diameters without requiring a uniformly-sized device for every application.
Regarding claim 8, GABO discloses that a ratio of the height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the second device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) to the height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the first device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) is 1/1 (Annotate GABO Fig. A above), 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 2/3.
Regarding claim 9, GABO discloses that a ratio of the width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the second device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) to the width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the first device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) is 1/1 (Annotate GABO Fig. A above), 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 2/3.
Regarding claim 10, GABO discloses that at least one third device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) having a length (Annotate GABO Fig. B above), a width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) and a height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) is provided, wherein a ratio of the height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the third device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) to the height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the first device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) or to the height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the second device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) is 1/1 (Annotate GABO Fig. A above), 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 2/3.
Regarding claim 11, GABO discloses that at least one third device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) having a length (Annotate GABO Fig. B above), a width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) and a height (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) is provided, wherein a ratio of the width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the third device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) to the width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the first device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) or to the width (Annotate GABO Fig. B above) of the second device (Annotate GABO Fig. A above) is 1/1 (Annotate GABO Fig. A above), 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 2/3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 9024211 B2, US 8656668 B2, US 7373761 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASA F SOLOMON whose telephone number is +1 571-272-8379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9am-5pm 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at +1 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of the 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.
/ASA FRANKLIN SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights